Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventoritis

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 was delete. Dakota 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inventoritis

Inventoritis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This looks like nothing but a clever promotion for Atomic Creative and Tatsuya Nakagawa; see AfD talk page for details A. B. 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Points for hiding the ad. Delete. --humblefool® 06:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. +10000000000000000000 points for the Duck Tales mention in the article. --- RockMFR 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, hehehehe. Xdenizen 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clever indeed, but still a promotion. Shimeru 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They're getting smarter, I'll give 'em that... yandman 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 11:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Only 475 ghits, so it's a non-notable neologism anyway. MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently I prodded it in July as a non-notable neologism and possible v-word. It's longer now, but the same applies. The points made on the talk page are particularly persuasive. Dina 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but possible BJOADN candidate -Toptomcat 15:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I appologize for adding additional links to the definition. I have removed the links noted. The word inventoritis has been used loosely in the VC and product marketing community for the last couple of years, but has not been well defined until recently - Product USA.--User:Tnakagawa1

If it's a definition, add it to the Wiktionary. -Toptomcat 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed that some of the comments focused on being non-notable. What is considered notable? If anyone is interested I can send them a 60pg primer on why the word is important. I look forward to your comments. --User:Tnakagawa1
  • See Wikipedia:Notability for our guidelines on this. Also see our guidelines on neologisms and why we don't accept articles on them. And in case it's not crystal clear from reading those, please do not send me the primer. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clever, but no cookie for them. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Obviously a vanity article created by the self-proclaimed inventor of the term. That makes it a Neologism and 'original research' - both of which are grounds for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test too. SteveBaker 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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.