Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googiality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedily deleted at request of creator (see below). But I bet googiality now gets results on Google :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googiality

Neologism, zero Google hits, article admits the term was made up today. Deprodded. Hate to even bring this here, but there's no WP:CSD that fits. Accurizer 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not delete,This is an original piece of info i have not copied or anything.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jynn (talk • contribs)
  • Come on ,why do you call it "made up" googiality is a fact like wikiality and happening every day.you do not believe me search for the word "stupid" on google and see what comes up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jynn (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Obviously scrapes WP:NFT and WP:NOR. PJM 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont you get it, where do you do original research(On google or any other search engine I bet).--Jynn 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Googiality is a recursive case of Googiality--Jynn 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I make up googility tomorrow in a blog or any number of pages does it then be according to rules of wikipedia--Jynn 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok guys delete it if you want i am not angry or anything ,But i think i have a point maybe i am wrong ,I will try and make this word get ontothe internet somehow and maybe then i can write an entry about that word all right?is that acceptable.--Jynn 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Jynn, as I tried to explain on your talk page, the term does not presently satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, such as WP:V, WP:NEO, and WP:NFT. Also, you admit above that it is orignal research, which does not comply with WP:OR. All information contained in Wikipedia must first appear in a published, reputable, verifiable source. Accurizer 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per a pair of big hairy ones. OBM | blah blah blah 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it guy's "must first appear in a published, reputable, verifiable source" I will make sure it happens ,can i delete the article myself so that at least i do not fell like i vandalized or something..Thanks for feed back good work ..keep it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jynn (talk • contribs)
    • It can be speedily deleted by an administrator per your request. Thanks for your understanding. Accurizer 14:33, 11 October 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.