For discussion before 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC), see Talk:Fictitious entry.
References edit
Are there references on the claim that this was a neologism in the German Wikipedia? - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see the external links. In general, the only way to show that a word is NOT a made up neologism would be to provide a pre-Wikipedia reference. But nobody, including the original author, could do that. For obvious reasons if you ask me, it is so obviously a hoax :-) Beside that, a German friend I talked to to said that this would be a very untypical term as it sounds strange and is difficult to pronounce in German. Cacycle 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This page should be kept as is, Google gives > 10,000 hits on "nihilartikel -wikipedia". The articel does also not violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Cacycle 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing there though. Check them out individually. 10,000 hits of nothing. There's a lot of users have called themselves Nihilartikel and a few seem to have read the wikipedia, but there's no authorative source out there.WolfKeeper 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleting this article feels a bit like hiding evidence of a case of severe misuse of Wikipedia. I think we have a responsibility to elaborate on that hoax - those 10,000 Google hits will not disappear anytime soon. And I prefer to do it here and not in the Fictitious entry article. Cacycle 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What responsibility? To the hoaxers? It's not like we're hiding anything anyway, we have a redirect, and nihilartikel is currently mentioned in the first paragraph. That's more than generous.WolfKeeper 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)