| Revision as of 06:55, 21 May 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:39, 21 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| A sci-fi neologism of a sci fi writer ]. No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs. -- ] 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | A sci-fi neologism of a sci fi writer ]. No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs. -- ] 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Selective merge and redirect''' to ]. No in-depth coverage, but wide enough coverage per Google news search that it's sensible someone would be searching for the term on here. ~]] |
*'''Selective merge and redirect''' to ]. No in-depth coverage, but wide enough coverage per Google news search that it's sensible someone would be searching for the term on here. ~]]] 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''': What exactly you mean by "google news coverage". In my google 4 news: one hit for Sterling's and 3 hits for a "Spime, Inc." of dubious notability. -- ] 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | :*'''Comment''': What exactly you mean by "google news coverage". In my google 4 news: one hit for Sterling's and 3 hits for a "Spime, Inc." of dubious notability. -- ] 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::* is the search I ran. ~]] |
::* is the search I ran. ~]]] 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::*Did you care to look thru this short list terminated in 2006? It was a blip, sizzled. ] (]) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | :::*Did you care to look thru this short list terminated in 2006? It was a blip, sizzled. ] (]) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - it looks like there's enough coverage on Google News and other sources to establish notability. ] 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - it looks like there's enough coverage on Google News and other sources to establish notability. ] 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:39, 21 May 2022
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2007 November 23. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. |
| This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 February 24. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. |
| This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 April 12. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, replace by redirect. The article is nothing but exposition of the originator of the neologism. No evidence of 3rd party active usage of the term presented. `'Míkka>t 08:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment after close - P.S. For historical record: It was previously deleted twice: * Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Spime, *Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spime (theory). -- Laudak 08:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The first (in November 2004) was deleted as a copyvio , the second (in 2006) was apparently a different article (possibly a content fork) about someone else's theory - see this comment, also the Spime article just deleted now was first created in December 2004 and was not deleted in 2006. Snigbrook (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Spime
A sci-fi neologism of a sci fi writer Bruce Sterling. No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs. -- Laudak 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Selective merge and redirect to Bruce Sterling. No in-depth coverage, but wide enough coverage per Google news search that it's sensible someone would be searching for the term on here. ~Eliz81 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What exactly you mean by "google news coverage". In my google 4 news: one hit for Sterling's and 3 hits for a "Spime, Inc." of dubious notability. -- Laudak 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is the search I ran. ~Eliz81 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Did you care to look thru this short list terminated in 2006? It was a blip, sizzled. Laudak (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it looks like there's enough coverage on Google News and other sources to establish notability. Snigbrook 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per NEO, and notability (4 hits ain't going to cut it). - Rjd0060 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per Rjd0060. Tiptoety 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep widespread coverage, particularly in the academic/design theory sphere Artw 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously you didn't check this list: 50% are the typo for "spline", both in biology and maths :-) 30% are foreign language word with different meanings. Laudak (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Artw; concept is widely utilized in the academic literature. Skomorokh 10:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Can non members vote? There's no question this term has gained acceptance beyond Sterling's writing in the theory of digital objects and physical computing. -- 89.150.74.120 (talk · contribs · logs) 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Artw. -- PAW (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- Darrik2 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Worth noting that Sterling didn't coin the term in his capacity as a sci-fi author, but for a design class he was teaching. It's since spread well beyond him, as others have noted above. Poisonink (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Per Laudak's comments, I, too, can find little usage beyond that connected with Sterling. It may be notable that there is a company by the name Spime Inc. which has "Spime" as a registered trademark, accounting for quite a few search-engine hits. Tim Ross• 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.