Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceconomics

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faceconomics

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

Non-notable neologism. This article represents original research regarding the author's own view of macroeconomics. Mostly a thinly-veiled (or not veiled at all) attempt to promote the author's as yet unpublished book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, original research, and I can find no reliable evidence that this book has been published or that anyone uses this word except its author. Most of the Google links are for various spellings of "Fac. Economics" (Faculty of Economics). Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Perhaps after publication if and when third-party reliable sources write about it. Ubelowme (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Seemingly promotional overtones as well... Carrite (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word Faceconomics is a brand and copyright material. WK: publishes these neologism verbiage to provide clarity. The post is for public use for clarity since, the word have yet to be used mainstream. 170.97.67.112 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly the IP user doesn't understand the Wikipedia guidelines indicating that Wikipedia is not to be used to promote a concept to bolster its notability or recognition, but rather exists to document concepts that have already become notable by their widespread use elsewhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO as noted above, and as a (possible) violation of copyright. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 11 June 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.