Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reductio ad googlism

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 User requested speedy delete (G7) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reductio ad googlism

Oh the irony... I'm going to "appeal to Google" on this one... 0 Google results [1] suggests that this is original research (see WP:NOR, and/or a neologism. Could certainly be a real phrase at some point... if it's formally defined somewhere and used in some media. Currently it doesn't seem to be used off of IRC, allegedly. W.marsh 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing ironical, colleague. Your google search is not for definition, but for notability test. These are "two big differences", as russian jokers say. mikka (t) 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• del. The criticism itself is notable though, see if it is somewhere in Google. mikka (t) 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• I posted this article under the wrong heading anyways. Sorry, I'm an annoying newbie. It can now be found under Argumentum ad googlism user:Thomash
  • Um, Argumentum ad googlism was deleted with the justification "vanity, promoting own theory" which is probably not a CSD. I wish it were though! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since User:Thomash, the original author and only contributor other than the AfD nominator, has blanked this article, it looks like a speedy delete under WP:CSD G7. --Metropolitan90 07:51, 31 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.