Talk:Imagination age
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Imagination age be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Sources
[edit]I have my doubts about this article and have therefore tagged it for cleanup. My particular concern is the lack of good sources to verify that this term is not just a neologism. A Google search doesn't seem to reveal much in the way of reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have since added three more sources, from different domains. As for reliable sources this is a bit strange. Imagination Age is a term used by some people for talking about the economy and the future, its not a mineral or a state in Africa but a term. A Google search should only show the the term is in fact being used or not and if so is it being used in line with the entry.
I acutally held off for about a year to make this entry until enough references to the term proved to me that it was a an emerging concept and not just a buzz word. I would ask you not speed this to delete over the upcoming holidays when I shall not have the hours to figure out Wikipeida reference rules and to collect more solid references.
--Rober1236jua (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have extended the references to this article including references to published books and Fortune Magazine and therefore feel confident to remove the sources. I actually believe it is a neologism but fail to see how in something like Wikipedia this is really a problem.
Rober1236jua (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It is now been almost a year since I produced this article and the term's use, as part of Google search I admit, is increasing. Over 7,000 sources last I checked. I think the neologism tag can be taken down. Though I leave that to the judgment of others.
Rober1236jua (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This article provides a variety of references and is well written to understand the topics depths. It was easy to access links to the references and I found it worthwhile to visit original sources just to dive a little deeper.
The neutrality of the article was will presented as it offered an equilibrium of different opinions, yet remained balanced as a whole. I personally enjoyed reading about what other people have thought throughout the years and found it extremely beneficial to my understanding of the Imagination Age. Tmercado98 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)tmercado98
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class futures studies articles
- Mid-importance futures studies articles
- WikiProject Futures studies articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Mid-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class neuroscience articles
- Low-importance neuroscience articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class Aesthetics articles
- Low-importance Aesthetics articles
- Aesthetics task force articles
- C-Class ethics articles
- Low-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- Wikipedia requested images