Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Protologism? Caps? (nasty format) SemperBlotto 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
*Groan* — that was not fun. It’s a neologism. The initial majuscule is warranted, as (I think) this is a proper, rather than a common, noun. It has six citations, but I’m unsure how valid they are (due to durability of archiving and actual-quotation-lacking issues); though even if they’re not, Pharmageddon gets 32 Google Scholar hits, so I’m sure some quotations could be gleaned from that lot. I rewrote the definition, which seemed to be a copyright violation (well, it was copied from elsewhere, whether it was copyrighted thereby is unknown to me). I suspect Aspro didn’t know what he was on about, as he listed two translations — one Dutch (but which, I guesstimate, is actually a translation from some Scandinavian language (judging from the ‘a + kroužek’ (å) and the ‘o + stroke’ (ø)) — someone will need to check which language it is; a link to the original context is provided by it), and the other American! (I knew the dialects had some differences, but was unaware that they were beginning to be regarded as separate languages!) –The latter, needless to say, was removed. I also hid the usage note and the reference for reasons given thereinbefore; if someone could address those issues, that would be grand. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The URL is a .dk, that is, Danish. And the language used supports that. (Actually, there seems to be slightly more hits for the spelling "farmageddon" - mainly English ones, including a mention in wordspy, though I'm not sure if these are supposed to have identical meanings or not) \Mike 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Without looking myself, I’d imagine that Pharmageddon (which implies pharmaceuticals) is distinct from farmageddon (which I’d guess implies farms and thus agriculture). Pharming and phishing are other examples of this meaningful f/ph switching (and the first one directly relates to the farm/pharm(aceuticals) pair). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved from page. Had been commented. DAVilla 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This usage note is erroneous; the new sense it describes is also derogatory. If the new sense exists, it ought to be added as a common-nounal sense, not mentioned in a usage note. 2. There is an earlier quotation (from The New Yorker) provided on the citations subpage which predates the FBR International Ltd.; for that reason the references section is now incorrect. It sounds like a possible source for a 2001 citation — therefore more suitable on the subpage than in a references section.
Originally used mainly in a derogatory sense, but now being used more generally for any pharmaceutical development(s) where its true benefit(s) (as opposed to those proclaimed by its inventors) are in doubt.