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. -- Steel 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiturfing[edit]

non notable --Xpwne 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, on account that the nominator has put a wikiproject - WikiBrowse, specifically - on the AfD block, and this and that constitutes their sole contributions to Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - corrected link to the correct project name. --Dennisthe2 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, changed vote. Point taken about Xpwne's edit history. I'll let the AFD take its course. --Dennisthe2 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of the nominee's lack of activity, the term really appears to be non-notable. TSO1D 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With 12 unique Google hits (and even less if we don't count Wikipedia and mirrors), this barely even counts as a protologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Wikiturfing. -- Petri Krohn 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Petri Krohn. Definitely nn protologism inappropriate for articlespace, and a violation of WP:ASR, but actually appropriate for internal usage. Actually a good description for a lot of stuff that comes through AFD. Fan-1967 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term isnt even used INSIDE the wikipedia community, why does it deserve a mention in the Wikipedia: space? Copysan 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism, not even used in Wikipedia...SkierRMH,06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Copysan and SkierRMH. It is simply another way of saying that non-notable companies write advertisements on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism and even if it did exist, I'd prefer a redirect to astroturfing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism, never heard of it. Terence Ong 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NEO Charlie 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's too new, just internal slang. -- Stbalbach 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete citation to a web forum, especially that particular web forum, does not pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Hagerman^(talk) 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is only on here to create the impression that it has gained social clout. --JimmyTheWig 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• move: to Wikipedia:Wikiturfing. Ombudsman 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to project space if anyone cares, otherwise delete as a self-referential neologism. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm impressed. You have thounsands of completely irrelevant lemmata (which is not the worst thing on Wikipedia, much worse is the total nonsense purported in popular lemmata), but you cannot bear this simple fact of life. Should I tell the Wikitruth, when this is gonna be deleted? Fossa 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.