Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technomyopia

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technomyopia

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

Someone deprodded, so here I am. Term is not notable. It was coined by non-notable author in a non-notable book. The only citations on the article are the book itself; there are no secondary/reliable sources. Searching google for more references only turned up tiny blogs and an Urban Dictionary entry -- not enough to establish notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the fair amount of popularity this term might get from urban dictionary, it may be a notable word someday, but as of now it's way WP:TOOSOON to start an article about this. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. A Google Scholar search on term returns 44 hits on the scholarly literature. I'm a prof who assigns this reading in a course and my students created the stub. If you can wait until June 2016, I'll ask other students to add more sources and show how term is used in different ways by scholars.Communic8te (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Communic8te: This discussion will likely be closed within a week or two. You're welcome to make a userspace draft version of the article that your students can add to in June 2016 (assuming the current version of the article gets deleted). -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your argument is not valid per Wikipedia's policy of WP:GOOGLEHITS. The mere popularity of a term on the internet does not imply the underlying subject is notable. Tigraan (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. There may be a good case for the notability of the book, which could mention this term, but as there are no secondary sources whatsoever here there's nothing to merge. No objections to a redirect should someone create an article about the book, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 23 March 2016 (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.