Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neocheating

Neocheating was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Neocheating

Neologism. A Google search suggests that the far more common meaning of the term is about cheating at poker, and that this definition of the term is jargon exclusive to something called "Neo-Tech". -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, and interested people should keep an eye on contributions from the article's creator, User:RJII, who has linked to neo-tech.com in several articles. Neo-Tech appears to be some sort of spiritual movement. Rhobite 06:43, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neo-Tech is not a spiritual movement. It's a philosophy that seeks to eliminate all forms of mysticism including spirituality. (RJII)
• Delete, but Wiktionary should include the poker-cheating meaning. GeorgeStepanek 07:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It gets a little weirder: further wading indicates that they are actually one and the same. That is, the same guy who purportedly discovered these new, incredible methods for cheating at poker and dubbed them "neocheating" to denote the crucial factor that... uh... well, anyways, he then discovered to his surprise that these poker-cheating methods are the same ones used by "all politicians, clergymen, union leaders, many journalists, many academe, and most lawyers [to] usurp power and values from the innocent producers." And it has something to do with manipulating mysticism in others. Hey, I wonder if that's why I lost my shirt at Vegas -- they manipulated my mysticism! That's neocheating! -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • My personal goal this week will be to try to insert the phrase "manipulating my mysticism" into my conversation somewhere. --Calton 06:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Didn't Neotech lose VfD? I wonder if Neo-Tech is a recreation? The folks behind the article did the usual thing: created six or seven articles on their private philosophy. I thought they all came up for VfD and lost. Geogre 15:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Appears to be a useful neologism to encapsulate the concept it denotes. It comes up in a google search in discussions about subjects ranging from poker-playing to religion. (Interested users should keep an eye on User: Rhobite who is apparently on a personal crusade to eliminate all web links to Neo-Tech web site.) (RJII, author of the article)
  • When did "useful neologism" become an exception to the general rule on "neologism"? By the way, you'd be well-advised not to play the personal attack game. Unlike you, Rhobite has been around Wikipedia for more than three days and has given us some reason to trust that he acts for the good of Wikipedia, not out of some personal crusade. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to edit here, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was jumping down your throat. However, self-promotion isn't allowed here and you've linked to neo-tech several times as well as created a couple neo-tech articles. That's all I was pointing out. Rhobite 02:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know how you construe that I'm "self-promoting." I'm just contributing information to the knowledge base. I'm not affiliated with the web site. I've linked to the neo-tech site a few times because i'm familiar with the wealth of information that's contained there --some of it very valuable in my opinion. Why should that bother you? (RJII)
    • You can safely drop the "self", if you like. Unfortunately, it won't make the difference you may hope for; it doesn't become more acceptable to us to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for publicity if you're not affiliated with the entity you're promoting. Why should it "bother us" that you're "contributing information to the knowledge base"? Because the goal of Wikipedia is not just information, it's information in context. Take the article that's the subject of this VfD. "Neocheating is defined as: Any intentional use of mysticism designed to create mind "realities" or false illusions in order to extract values from others. Neocheating is the technique for expropriating unearned money or power by manipulating mysticism in others." Nowhere does it disclose the important context that neocheating is "defined as" these things only by those who have bought into the whole "Neo-Tech" philosophy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It is not necessary to "buy in" to the Neo-Tech philosophy to recognize the value of having a word to encapsulate the concept of manipulating mysticism in people to take their money. "Neocheating" is that word. Pull it up on Google ..thousands of entries...the same on Usenet. It's being used by those in the know..even by poker strategists who have little if any knowledge of Neo-Tech. Can I help it if you're out of the loop? Sure, you may be able to out-vote me, but what does that mean? The word will still be in use. All you guys are doing is trying do is prevent knowledge of the word, for some bizarre reason, and I think that's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. (RJII)
      • What being "able to out-vote you" means is that several people who have been Wikipedia users for months and in some cases years are all agreeing it's a neologism and the word of one guy who hasn't been here for a full week yet doesn't really outweigh that. Such a shape that we don't know the spirit of Wikipedia as well as you do... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Note that someone's posted to a (mostly dead) usenet group to try and skew the vote: for Neocheating and for Neo-Tech. Shimgray 19:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Cdc 21:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful is not the same as used for neologisms. --Calton 06:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I had a chat with some of these "Zon Power" chaps a few years ago. Entertainingly dotty, and with all kind of strange redefinitions of common words. Here they have a good go at redefining the word pip [1]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 07:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Word games. Not notable. --Improv 06:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 06:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 07:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.