Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperthinker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Neologism. No evidence of notability beyond the book. Unsourced article (see also links are promo sites not references). Major contributors to the article have worked on little else. Major defenders of the article also have worked on little else so discounting their comments somewhat, leaving a consensus to delete. --++Lar: t/c 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperthinker

Prod tag removed. Given the user name of the creator, I think vanity applies. As far as the concept, most of the links I find point to blogs, so I'm not sure there is a notability claim either. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete from google it looks almost like this might be an attempt at advertising Ydam 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neo, ad. From links and google, it appears it's a title for seminars (You, too, can get rich by learning to be a hyperthinker). Fan1967 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Ben Houston 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Objection to deletion: This is an entry to define a new word. Is the fact that the word was invented by a business professional enough reason to block it? It does exist, doesn't it? More and more people are using it in their daily language. It does not advertise a product or a service. Can only not-professionals define & invent new words? Joost van de Loo, 10 June 2006

• It is because it is a new word that it is being deleted. This is not a dictionary and it is wikipedia policy to avoid neogolisms per WP:NEO Ydam 09:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The style guide WP:NEO discourages the use of neogolisms IN articles, but says that articles ABOUT neogolisms are ok - if they can be verified via secundary sources. This article describes a neogolism that is the subject of a book, HyperThinker, written by a professional, Philip Weiss, in his field of expertise. So the secundary source rule is applicable here. Joost van de Loo 15:59 June 13 2006

• We only do articles about neologisms that significant numbers of people use. If a word is invented by a business, and is used only by that business, for commercial purposes, it's an ad. Since you and Mr. Weiss are the people marketing this word, I can understand why you might have reason to disagree. Fan1967 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since I do not see hyperthinker as vanity. There is a thin line between dictionary and encyclopedia, I do not see that either as a valid reason to delete this post. B Wendel 10:40. June 12 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.