Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontic processor

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 speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ontic processor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and probably more than just this. I was about to question the wisdom of AFD tagging an article 5 minutes after deletion, but upon further examination, this appears to be part of a recently erected walled garden derived from the futurist writings of author Gia Giavelli -- and nothing else. In fact, this term has a staggering zero non-Wikipedia Google hits. I don't think any of the articles associated with her work pass notability guidelines, in fact (this one, Neural cube, Spider Arm Reactor), and suggest that all three can be bundled into this nomination. The biography itself may warrant separate consideration, but I'm also doubtful there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spent some time researching Gia Giavelli today and I couldn't find anything which would justify enough notability for an article on Wikipedia. She appears to be an obscure author and an obscure business person. I feel confident that this is a vanity article now so I nominated the Gia Giavella article for deletion as well. Holyfield1998 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's unsourced and there's a good reason why it's unsourced. It doesn't exist outside of here. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly not a dictionary of fringe terms someone created. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all possible speed this thing someone made up one day.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of a neologism. No references and no coverage outside of Wikipedia.--xanchester (t) 11:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.