Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldspot (Wi-Fi)

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.

DRV overturns this result (with original closer's concurrence) to Delete. [1] Xoloz 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ~~No consensus.~~ Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspot (Wi-Fi)

Unverifiable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I submitted this nomination, I looked around, and found out that Coldspot, which links as a redirect to Coldspot (Wi-Fi), was actually the subject of a previous AFD discussion that ended in deletion. Therefore we might be able to speedy this under A4... SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Though I guess I would say that as the article creator! Neologism it may be, that doesn't make the subject unnotable. As suggested in the article, coldspots will be a more valuble subject than hotspots, as there will be a a complete web. We currently talk about mobile phone "no signal areas", so why not Wi-Fi Coldspots? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, uncited (bar hearsay), admitted neoligism, OR, probably vanity entry, crystal-ball-gazing and apparent attempt to circumvent previous deletion decision (so speedy delete). Andy Mabbett 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic Pigsonthewing. Please note[2]. The previous page(s) were created and deleted before I was even a member on wiki![3]. Do not throw accusations around without checking your facts. Additionally, every word is a neologism at some point! That's what it means: neo = new, logos = word. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far from off-topic: see WP:NEO. I note the continued incivility in your refusal to use my name. Andy Mabbett 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, Pigsonthewing - WP:NEO states "This page is a content guideline for Wikipedia". This is as opposed to, say, WP:NPA, which states "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia". L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. Coldspot (Wi-Fi) is content, is it not? (additional incivility noted) ) Andy Mabbett 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to guideline and official policy as you well know Pigsontheing. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, if you have a point, you need to express it more clearly. Andy Mabbett 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (via edit conflict) Comment Sources, yes. Reliable sources, no. Urban dictionary is a "catch-all" site of neologisms and protologisms that gives no creedence as to whether the terms are even used outside of small cliques (I'm not saying that "coldspot" is one of those, but rather that UD gives no indication of whether it is or not). The second site you list is a post to a mailing list, again a place where, unless there are special rules about who can post (and I'm not saying there are or aren't), my word is as good as Steve Jobs', or some random nutcase with an internet account. Like I said, the Google search brings up no reliable sources, only the Wikipedia article itself, Urban Dictionary, blog postings, and the like. See WP:NEO, in particular the section on "Reliable sources for neologisms" to see what's needed to make this a notable term. Confusing Manifestation 07:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, Hotspot itself is a neologism, albeit in common useage. As is television, and many other expressions. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The difference being that there are reliable sources for hotspot and television, and I can find nothing for "coldspot". For example, when I look on Google News for "coldspot"[4], all the top results are for a refrigerator company by that name. In fact, if I search for "coldspot wifi", I still get results for the refrigerator. Even a plain Google search, while it does turn up quite a few sites using the term, doesn't suggest any sources that would count as reliable. Confusing Manifestation 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far from off-topic: see WP:NEO. Andy Mabbett 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Please perform a good Google News searches plus USENET postings before deciding its notability. I'm sure you will find something in substance for your case. Mailcpathetsang 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above. Confusing Manifestation 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- a further source. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- another. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A mailing list post from a Hotmail user which says "I suppose 'coldspot' might be a better phrase" hardly meets our criteria for verifiable sources. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this google page has a few refs. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is notable as per [5], article does however neede referencing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google Search does not notability make. See the links in my comment above, as well as Wikipedia: Search engine test — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConMan (talk • contribs)
Delete - There are no reliable sources referenced and a quick Google suggests why, there doesn't seem to be any. Therefore fails notability criteria, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm also slightly concerned by the image in the article which was created by the uploader, I cannot see how it can be used as an image representative of the subject but note it was probably used in the previously deleted article where the context might have been clearer. Adambro 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking a bit further into this, the Urban Dictionary entry (which only has one definition) seems to suggest that the term was "first coined by the Wavefighters organization" which is also the source of the image. Could this be one guys attempt to get the term into usage? The UD entry is by someone from Plymouth and the Wavefighters website is also registered by someone from Plymouth. The same website seems to suggest its part of some campaign relating to concerns about RF radiation.[6] So the image therefore probably isn't relevant to the article. See also [7]. Adambro 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote the article, and no, I am not from Plymouth (see info which has been long-standing on my user page) - I am from Sheffield, and Coldspot is a term being used within the University for the areas where there is no internet Wi-Fi access (currently old departments and bizzarly, one of the bars!) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very sorry to have confused you, I wasn't suggesting you had any connection to the "Wavefighters" organisation. My comment was an assessment of one of the sources you provided earlier, and of the appropriateness of the image in the article. Adambro 11:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed a G4 speedy request from the article; it contains substantially more context than the previously AfD'd article, and this nomination should be decided on its own merits. --ais523 08:54, 26 April 2007 (U T C)
Comment The random revert glitch seems to have hit this page; I've attempted to reconstruct the debate, but the closing admin should look at the history. --ais523 09:39, 26 April 2007 (U T C)
Delete. Even if the term is in use, surely this can be no more than a dicdef? You can write length about the history, nature and characteristics of hotspots, but of a coldspot all you can say is that none of those things apply. BTLizard 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did the Sheffield student that supposedly invent it publish it in a refereed journal or conference proceedings? If not, and this appears to be the case, then it's an unverifiable term. The small number of google hits are spurious. --RFBailey 21:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more references to be quoted.SlideAndSlip 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much more then a dictdef. Current article reads like OR and fails for reliable sources and notablity. Vegaswikian 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually merging into hotspot might be an option with a redirect. Vegaswikian 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Duplicate Please perform a good Google News searches plus USENET postings before deciding its notability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mailcpathetsang (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neither search comes back with any use of the term Coldspot in the context described in this article. Adambro 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, like I said above, while Google News does give quite a few results for "coldspot" they are all for a refrigerator company. Even a USENET search via Google Groups, usually the place to go to look for neologism use, doesn't turn up anything in the top-most relevant results; of the top 20, 17 are about the refrigerator, and the other 3 seem to be about a ska band called Coldspot 8. Not about Wi-Fi (in addition, Groups gave no hits for coldspot+wifi). Confusing Manifestation 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me on a quick search, and the term is in wide use in Norwich, which is the UK's first wi-fi city. Jen Kettle 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite? Andy Mabbett 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful concept, which is now increasingly relevent as significant areas like the City of London (with 350,000 workers) now have large-scale Wi-Fi networks and phones like the Nokia N95 sport Wi-Fi access, so people are more likely to be wandering around expecting coverage to be consistent than they would with an old-fashioned laptop. An article in The Times (you know, the paper that Americans call the 'London Times' or the 'Times of London') on April 22nd 2007 referred to the concept behind this article - but by the less interesting, specific or politically correct term of "blackspots". 80.229.220.14 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's useful is not a valid argument to keep the article. The guidelines are spelt out at WP:NEO, which are just specification of what appears at WP:V and WP:RS, and the rules are clear - must be verifiable through non-trivial references to reliable sources. Without that, the article doesn't have a leg to stand on. Confusing Manifestation 04:46, 1 May 2007 (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.