Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki magic

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 and redirect to Wikipedia:Wiki magic. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki magic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Neologism which is a fork of matters covered in the encyclopedic topics crowdsourcing and collective intelligence. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article came up as the object of scorn in a recent Wikipediocracy thread. I don't think it passes GNG and leave the matter to the community for decision. The article is a particularly low traffic piece, it might also be noted. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Wikipedia:Wiki magic. The subject isn't seem notable enough for its own article, though it may fit on the Wikipedia namespace. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to be a TV Tropes thing: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WikiMagic Eddymason (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to wiki. We cover what the article describes many places, including wiki but also e.g. Wisdom of the crowd, collective intelligence, collective action, swarm intelligence, maybe even stigmergy...But if we're considering the neologism to be non-notable (which indeed I think it fails WP:NEO), it should probably just point to the underlying subject, which of course is partially defined by this sort of collaboration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 15 March 2015 (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.