Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kardashian Index
mdash; Yes, weak neutral, whatever that means. :P I say this because there are many valid points raised above on both sides... well, except the scientific use clearly fails  (the scholar hits are simply not actually there in number). That said, the news of it being science might pass , but, then again, the news of it being science might fail OT#NEWS... but then again, a scientific concept wouldn't exactly be "news" in the sense that NOT#NEWS is usually applied.  I noticed things like http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/09/top-50-science-stars-twitter, which don't just parrot the news, but also then say "oh, here's a top list we made." There's clearly buzz on blogs of actual scientists (which can semi-sorta be considered |reliable as field-specific expert analysis), but realistically blogs as a general whole aren't considered actually truly reliable sources.  As a whole, it doesn't seem to garner the actual widespread coverage we typically have for , but then again, it's probably predominantly interesting to the scientists themselves and not the public at large. Hmm
— User:Slakr, 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:USERGENERATED||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)