Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocacolonization

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 of the debate was keep. The note about Google Scholar was particularly noteworthy; it's true that WP:NOT a dictionary, but there's a strong feeling here, and well-argued, that this article could be more than just a dictionary definition. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocacolonization

term not widely in use - term moved to Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms. difficult to spell. "Today, McDonaldization, Disneyfication, and Swooshification are the phrases that capture the fears of a growing monoculture." - political biased information, not wikipedia data. By the way: "Swooshification" - who says that (sounds creepy)? more "the age of nike". I do not see a need to list such words here. They really need a hudge fanbase (like ghey).

wiktionary:Cocacolonization
wiktionary:Transwiki:Cocacolonization
wiktionary:Microsoftify 114 hits. see discussion.

Comment This debate is not about those terms, dont confuse people with things you just made up, as opposed to terms that are verifiable The comment was not originally in this position or form, hence the comment. Ans e ll 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifyable - 94 hits are not very. 470 are a bit more. 416,000 hits are verifyable evidence of something. comment moved here Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe merge. Seems to have been around since the '50s so not really a neologism. Difficult to spell isn't a reason to delete. It's not widely used but is quite interesting - Merge to Colonization is a possibility? Dlyons493 Talk 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling only produces 498 results, when you dump Wikipedia, but they all appear to be relevant. This, along with this abstract on a paper. Google Scholar also has 33 relevant results. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is not a new suggestion. It has had time to mature, as shown by the references provided by Jude. Suggestions about a google notability index will never work though, that part is not why I refer to Jude. This is not a politically based piece of work, the phenomena is understood outside of national boundaries. It is interesting that this AfD seems to be related to Ghey by the nominator in both comments and nomination. Make of that what you may. Ans e ll 12:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known term used for many years. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Scholar. Academic legitimacy 4 life! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I remember profs using this word in college but the article is bascially a dictdef Sumergocognito 19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should not set a standard based on a certain number of Google hits being enough to keep a word in Wikipedia. Over time Google is likely to index more and more content which would make it easier to meet that standard. Often, articles about words with large numbers of Google hits are just dicdefs anyway which would be more appropriate for Wiktionary. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki to wiktionary, unless it's expanded. --eivind ^t ^@^c 00:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki per EivindFOyangen. -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate academic term. I've heard several university professors use it. - ulayiti (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Can you list them into the article? Otherwise see Weasel words - "several university professors". Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I could, but it wouldn't make any sense since I've only heard them use it in lectures. If you want to see academic sources using the term, have a look at Google Scholar. - ulayiti (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. --so U m y a S ch 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep been around for years and not really a neologism, should be expanded though.Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jude's adduction of Google Scholar results. Joe 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." This entry is not simply a definition of the word, it has more implications that can be explored in an article. Ans e ll 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve and expand Guinnog 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Sdedeo (tips) 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it is a separate concept but hardly a huge loss if it goes Fnarf999 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary already has the entry, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See also Stifle. gidonb 15:51, 13 May 2006 (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.