Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self Generated George Fact

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. Enochlau 04:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self Generated George Fact

Unencyclopedic plus neologism plus campuscruft plus CSD isn't ready for it. Delete — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy - Silly hoax, anonymous user is deleting AFD template too. Naturenet | [[User talk:Naturenet|Talk]] 19:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• ((user:Wantstolearnhownottobeanonymous): Not a hoax. Attempting to expound on a neologism. And, I did not delete a template. Was attempting to follow the "talk" command. Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia.
• Delete unless someone can come up with evidence of widespread usage. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is ironic. Doesn't the immediate doubt at the assertion of the phrase prove its own validity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.148.224 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-28 19:36:08 UTC.
  • No. What would demonstrate the verifiability of the concept would be cited sources. Unlike the example people in the article, here at Wikipedia our recourse when people challenge things is to point to the sources that we have cited that support what is written. Uncle G 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources, and research turns up no sources discussing any such concept. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There are 2 problems with the argument "we can't find any evidence of the term's widespread usage":

1. At some point in the history of every word/phrase only one person used the word or phrase and there existed no widespread evidence of the term's usage. Consider, "If the shoe fits, wear it." The term is fairly common, but at one point it wasn't. It was at the time of it's inception a term with a concrete meaning none the less. SGGF has a concrete meaning and we established its meaning. It is a very real thing and a very real phrase. We are the sources, right here. We've verified the term's existence.

Wikipedia:No original research prohibits us from being sources. We cannot include material which cannot be verified elsewhere. If only a handful of people are using a word, we do not mention it. — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Saying, "because we can't find it being used on the internet", seems silly because the users of the term are all in graduate school or work full time jobs. They don't have time to sit around blogging their daily lives. It's only now that I've turned in all my term papers that I've got time to type anything. Now, consider that the people we are most likely to spread the term too are our classmates and coworkers who are all just as busy as we are, and what you see is a term whos "target audience" is a non-blogging community. Perhaps if we were all 10 years younger, or all dot com wizards the situation would be different.

Wikipedia:No original research prohibits us from being sources. We cannot include material which cannot be verified elsewhere. If the people who use the word have not left any traces of their use in verifiable places, we do not mention it. — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Isn't this a speedy as a recreation of previously-deleted content, or does the new version differ from the last one? — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 2 December 2005 (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.