Talk:Memeplex

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Memeplex

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

This is just a buzz-term or phrase that was used for a short period of time. It has little to no relevance. It is not used in published journals or works. 101.162.65.234 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still bein used, look here: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/a-hundred-walked-out-of-my-lecture/ And it has a great effect on understanding Islamism and attractiveness of religious fundamentalism for young people. Do not delete this, do not deny people's right to know. Babak2000ir (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memeplex in publication and books: https://www.google.com/search?q=memeplex&oq=memeple&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4143j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=memeplex&tbm=bks Babak2000ir (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Memeplex" is also a self-evident descriptive term useful to define multiple but associated memes (whether or not they are religious memes). Nevertheless, the overriding factor in judging AfD status is whether secondary sources describe the topic as a measure of relevance for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In spite of the fact that the prior stub on "Memeplexes" could benefit from some additional explication and citations, the current content is at least informative, and the current citations are at least minimally adequate. Furthermore, regarding the AfD-proposer's stated concern that this term "was used for a short period of time," that assertion is both no longer accurate given the term's recent use in the press, and furthermore, validity/relevance of WP entries is not time-dependent. (Otherwise Wikipedia would be missing out on a little thing called "history.") Hence I vote that the AfD designation be removed, and the stub be improved, not deleted.Fhburton (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memeplex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080822192817/http://richarddawkins.net:80/article,3001,QampA-with-Richard-Dawkins-after-lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,RichardDawkinsnet to http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3001,QampA-with-Richard-Dawkins-after-lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,RichardDawkinsnet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]