Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obnosis

Obnosis

Article is an attempt to expand of what probably can never be more than a dicdef. Major contributing editor has attempted to add numerous sources, but none of the sources actually support the claims made in the article for the widespread usage of the word. Claims that it is in "widespread cultural usage" are doubtful, along with the claims that it is "invoked in reference to open source systems support, systems theory, technical education and cultural Internet sociology." Article is caught in a loop of sources being added, inspected by other editors and found completely lacking, sources being removed. Article comes down to "L. Ron Hubbard used it once or twice," and that isn't encyclopedic. There are also WP:COATRACK issues involved the habitual insertion of obnosis.com into the article. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOT. Movingboxes (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. There is no real assertion of notability for the topic of Obnosis, though there is evidence of some scattered use of Obnosis as a word - and that mainly as a slang neoglism. The Wiktionary entry for the word seems to cover what is needed to inform readers as to the term. If the article is to remain, it would need a serious clean up to be rewritten as a disambiguation page as that is mainly the direction in which it is headed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a scattered jumble loosely or not at all connected with the word Obnosis. Calling it a coatrack would accord it structure that it doesn't have. Most of the references aren't, and the article is full of original research astounding to a long-time participant of ARS (as a critic) and longer-time Usenet reader. The editor promoting the article doesn't play well with others, and has already created a wiktionary entry for it, which seems be all that's needed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Clean up. Notability is served historically and by the 22 cultural and technical references.

Major contributing editor is new to Wiki, works 60 hours a week, does not use any commercial obnosis.com for any profit, has a brief history with Wikipedia, and it's processes. The widespread cultural use is served by 22 references, which mostly exclude Scientology.

The regular changes to each section to remove items without noting sufficiently the issue in suggestive way on the talk page while waiting a reasonable amount of time equate to vandalism or edit war, rather than cooperative communications. LisaKachold's originating site user profile was edited to state "from obnosis.com" as vandalism.

Obnosis.com is applicable in reference to the technical use of the word obnosis (that is also already served by other references Microsoft. The site obnosis.com meets the requirements from Wiki for a reference.

I don't know where the protection banner went or the history on the talk pages but this obnosis page was temporarily protected by Wiki Administration, until it inexplicably disappeared. I don't even know who SCIBABY is but it was referenced by Administrators for Protection. LisaKachold (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork was requested as Dispute Editor to assist to resolve this dispute before a Deletion Page existed. The Deletion Tag was first placed when NO DELETION PAGE existed and none yet was requested. SilkTork voted for deletion [?? Is this appropriate from a Dispute Editor request??] . SilkTork gave feedback related to notability.

Notability is served just as it for the following: gnosis and other slang internet based words? Wiki is not a dictionary but real live living encyclopedia? Therefore obnosis more than meets the criteria for What Wiki is.

meh is yet another example.

Listing a programmer Randal L. Schwartz and his program Schwartzian_transform meets all tests for "What Wiki is NOT", CoatRack or COI?

Every IP I edit this page from endures dOs packets. MovingBoxes has removed tags and edited the talk pages with things like "commercial site" and Conflict of Interest, when none actually exists on this page related to obnosis.com, which is yet another notable non-commercial example. If this page does not meet What Wiki is Not, then the Anonymous_(group) neither meets the requirements, the online AOL derived chat slangs like LOL or WTF do not meet standards? LisaKachold (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist me to understand how this page differs from those? Also, please silence the liable type personal statements from MovingBoxes related to "doesn't play well with others". 24.251.216.251 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]