Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoogleTech

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GoogleTech

Dicdef, and not a very notable one at that. Peruvianllama 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is a common problem that I have just coined a phrase for. We experience this in the computer industry daily - there just has been no operating word for it.

  This is a new phenomenon where google and other resources can give just enough info that a researcher who isn't versed in that industry can fall prey to a person who sounds authorative, but who really isn't. (preceding unsigned comment by 12.215.250.101 (talk · contribs) )

• Delete I would like to point the author to Wikipedia is not for original research. If the word does not yet exist in common usage, we are not the place to start. Once the word is widely used, it can be added here. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this term has just been coined, it is a Neologism and not yet eligible for an article see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If the term becomes a common usage, we can consider the issue again. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that it's a problem, and not just in the computer industry, but Wikipedia isn't the place for phrases that you have just coined. Doctor Whom 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As others pointed out already, Wikipedia is not for neologisms. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. This belongs on a site like Urban Dictionary [1]. Not here. - Sensor 03:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Rogerd 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• 12.215.250.101, if you want to write about the phenomenon, then the place to do so is your own web site, or a journal such as Communications of the ACM. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of existing, accepted, knowledge. It is not a shortcut around the process of getting new ideas, new concepts, and new research published, peer reviewed, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, especially those for which you are coining a new word to name them at the same time. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tobyk777 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster Pureblade | ^Word 16:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete improper use of trademark, neologism Fsdfs 23:44, 13 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.