Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egosurfing

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 keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egosurfing

Egosurfing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. Lacks multiple reliable sources on the topic of the neologism itself, so it fails WP:NEO. Chardish 05:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - While it does seem to be rather new, it has apparently been mentioned in a tv show (The Office) and there is a website which has coined the term. Googling it fills pages on this exact definition. I think for a Neologism its pretty popular already. Redian (Talk) 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I had not heard of the concept under this name, but "Auto-googling" has been around for quite a while (at least five years; I used the word in 2002, after I encountered it on another blog). At the very least, egosurfing and auto-googling should be transferred over to Wiktionary if the article is deleted. Horologium t-c 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the idea is in quite common usage, though it's known by different names. "The term egosurfing dates from 1995, when it first appeared in the ‘Jargon Watch’ column of Wired magazine." says the Macmillan English Dictionary[1] It's more a question of what this article is called, rather than whether it's notable. Nick mallory 08:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - certainly the concept seems notable, but it really needs proper sources. If nothing can be found, delete as WP:NOT#DICT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• All of these keep votes are kind of surprising. WP:NEO clearly requires multiple sources on the topic of the neologism, not merely sources that reference it. - Chardish 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Just because you guys like it doesn't mean it meets with WP:NEO. Toss it. /Blaxthos 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's unfair. No one used an "I like it" argument. Zagalejo 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I found two articles on EBSCOHost which are actually titled "Egosurfing." The first is from New Scientist (November 11, 2006), and the second is from BMJ (January 16, 1999). I'm sure there's much more available if someone wants to do some digging. And as Nick said, the concept of Googling yourself is certainly familiar, even if the term may not be. Zagalejo 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the term is unfamiliar, that is compelling evidence that the neologism has not reached widespread use. I had never heard of it until stumbling upon this page. Remember, sources must be about the term, not merely using the term to describe something else. - Chardish 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But the article isn't about the term as a term; it's about the general concept of searching for yourself online. The title of the article really isn't that important. Zagalejo 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Articles on neologisms have to be about the term as a term, otherwise the concept would be more well-suited for general discussion in an article with a generic title, such as Internet searches for oneself. Without sources about the term as a term, there is no evidence that the term has entered widespread usage, and thus it is unverifiable. - Chardish 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, "egosurfing" has entered the Oxford Dictionary of English (and here's an outside source that says it has appeared in the dictionary), so I think we can assume it has entered widespread usage. Zagalejo 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I really understand your objections. Could you point to an article on a neologism that you would deem appropriate? Zagalejo 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure. McJob, Bushism, and Bling-bling are all acceptable articles about neologisms. Feminazi has the right idea in terms of what the article should be about, even though it lacks sources. - Chardish 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
          • @Zagalejo: then transwiki it to wiktionary? SalaSkan 12:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't see why we can't keep it here. It's just a stub right now, but it's conceivably expandable. Zagalejo 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep here. The term is in the Jargon File (link), so whether you consider that to be a verifiable enough source is left as an exercise, but Raymond does have certain standards to get things in there - and stuff doesn't just go into the jargon file. I call weak, however, because as was pointed out, the article is about the concept, not the term, and it's granted we're not a dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this argument about the article being about the concept vs being about the term. 1) we can certainly have articles about concepts. 2) at least two mainstream dictionaries list this word; therefore, if we have an article about the concept, we can use the word egosurfing for the article title. And there are published articles about egosurfing. The one at the McMillan website has already been mentioned. There's even a short note at the British Medical Journal about it! [2] --Itub 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a well-known term, and there are references about it. Search google books to see multiple printed appearances.[3] --Itub 13:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename - the concept was clearly discussed (in random places I don't remember, probably the Jargon File?) several years ago. The term can be debatable, but that's not the point. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Wikipedia:Internet phenomena - this is bollocks, shall we also start an article about Googling the name of your mother with the same content? SalaSkan 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which part of Wikipedia:Internet phenomena are you using for your argument? Zagalejo 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If we find that there is a word for it on mainstream dictionaries, and multiple articles written about it, yes. :) --Itub 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• If WP:NEO doesn't apply to this, I am curious what it would apply to, besides simply things people have made up. - Chardish 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The definition of neologism used in WP:NEO is "are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary". Granted, it says "generally" so some exceptions may apply, but the very fact that this word appears in dictionaries should make one careful about applying WP:NEO. There are many neologisms that are common on the internet that haven't made it into the dictionaries, and WP:NEO is perfect for them. --Itub 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and we can discuss the possible move further on the talk page, but I think this title will do until there is more evidence of what it is usually called. This is not an article about a word, any more than any article about any concept usually starts off with a definition. The first sentence makes this clear by listing the other terms. DGG 22:05, 15 June 2007 (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.