Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Digital Liquidity

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. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Digital Liquidity

WP:NEO Neologism WP:NOR Original research. John Nagle 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Copied from a blog article at [1]. --John Nagle 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rishodi 06:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dunstan 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE!The Entry is not a position, yet defined as an ability, and it was not copied, but rewritten and then posted on a blog by the creator of the subject, me! You boys need to do you own original research before you write off everyone's real work!Keep it! I wrote the blog people!If you read the entry note that it says created by Nicholas McGill-and is it wrong to post my own work on my own blog? -Note the owner of the blog is the very same Nicholas McGill. The saga continues. It IS MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH! I have worked on this and used this term for the past 10 years! There are other forms of evidence than just the web, if you are going to challenge this entry, find something solid to base it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo34350 (talk • contribs) 01:10, April 26, 2006.

Comment You just dug your own grave by stating that your article is original research, which is not admissible on Wikipedia. Read this policy page: WP:NOR. Rishodi 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - wait for someone else to pick up on your original research before you create an article about it. --james °o 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

-Do Not Delete- it, as it is my creation, how does wiki define the THEORY of general relativity- it never ceases to amaze me that arrogance in the tech world-"dug your own grave"-that kind of arrogance does not belong on wikipedia. Furthermore as personal digital liquidity is not a theory and is in fact an ability that anyone can have and if you know an inkling about economics, you know what liquidity is. There are other writers who comment about this quality without coining it, I have a specific definition it is spoken about in PC MAG and other major publications. They speak of the value in flexibility etc. with regard to software hardware. They do not create an all encompassing phrase or go into as much detail about what it encompasses, I thought wikipedia was all about this to include what others dfo not and to stay on the cutting edge, perhaps I am mistaken. Do I really have to have my clients comment on PDL for you to accept it- so far, as it is not a position, and is based on fact, and simply locks in to a definition that others have been working with in terms of the technical world. I do not see any reason to delete this submission. Do I really need a technical .com address to be able to submit- do I really need to have others write about it-just because you have a hard time googling it-doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Comment Read WP:V. Then read WP:NOR. Your original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. And the answer to your question is yes, others have to pick up on the term and write about it before it is considered encyclopedic. Rishodi 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. ergot 19:03, 26 April 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.