Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infoware

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 nomination was keep. The references in the article are conclusive in establishing the term's provenance, currency and usage. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoware

Failed 90s neologism. Artw 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A google search for Infoware O'Reilly gives 10,200 hits. -- Koffieyahoo 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. I agree with Koffieyahoo there are a reasonable number of Ghits. However, Google should not be the final arbiter of any notability since it can manipulated by mirror sites and simple reprinted press releases or catalog listings; and, certain word particles lend themselves to endless and pointless variations. Witness "e" and "i" as in e-mail, e-business, and a host of widgets brandnamed i-whatevers. I believe "info" is another one of these, and don't think it worthy of inclusion as infobabble. Tychocat 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tychocat. Alphachimp ^talk 13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism -- Alias Flood 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It's a 90s neologism, but I'm not convinced that it's a failed neologism because it seems useful in certain contexts to people in the real world. Here's an IEEE Spectrum article http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun06/3655 from last month that uses the term to describe "Web 2.0 database-driven sites." The tone of the article is to mock the terms and their usage, but if published articles are still mocking the term so many years after it was coined, I see that as an indication that it's still being used and still should have an article here. Flying Jazz 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is almost established, anyway, it is way past neologism status. --Ezeu 13:08, 11 July 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.