- 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. Singularity 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Signamercial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Neologism. Admittedly, invented by (new) user User:Michael randrup (see [1]), who is the sole editor of this article (apart from somebody placing tags). Google returns a cool total of 0 (zero) hits on "signamercial" or any variant spellings of same (apparently, it hasn't yet picked this article). Needless to say, no sources absolutely. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NEO. --On the other side Contribs|@ 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism Bfigura (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Admitted to be WP:MADEUP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The author invented the word, and therefore it's nonsense (G1). Proof of this is a google search, which returns only the Wikipedia article PeterSymonds | talk 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That doesn't mean it's patent nonsense per our speedy deletion criteria. In any case the concept treated in this article (beyond the obvious protologism) is something like 'Email Signature Marketing'. The current is just a personal essay, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand me. Obviously if it was a notable word, there would be conflict of interest, but it may warrant an article. However, it's not; it's a nonsense page because the word doesn't exist at all. PeterSymonds | talk 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you misunderstand Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. In any case we don't write articles on words but on topics. And while the article's creator has done his share to cloud it, all commenters above seem to disregard Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms and that the topic of this article is "structured advertising/marketing used by organizations in outgoing emails - typically below the sender's signature." I could just move it to e.g. Email signature marketing and edit the neologism away, if the draft was worth it, had some sources and I was interested, but I just came here because of the speedy tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair dos, my mistake. I was thinking that it must be nonsense because it was completely made up. Sorry for the trouble. PeterSymonds | talk 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No sweat. The title and word are made up and our notion of nonsense is more narrow than the common one. Now that I look, there are actually quite some hits on the topic. [2]. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair dos, my mistake. I was thinking that it must be nonsense because it was completely made up. Sorry for the trouble. PeterSymonds | talk 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you misunderstand Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. In any case we don't write articles on words but on topics. And while the article's creator has done his share to cloud it, all commenters above seem to disregard Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms and that the topic of this article is "structured advertising/marketing used by organizations in outgoing emails - typically below the sender's signature." I could just move it to e.g. Email signature marketing and edit the neologism away, if the draft was worth it, had some sources and I was interested, but I just came here because of the speedy tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (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.