Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googlelization

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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlelization

Article text: Googlelization: The massive use of Google’s search engine and their services for default.

A non notable neologism Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As far as I can see this is just another neologism to consign to the scrapheap, as I can only see it used on blogs and such like. If there are reliable sources available with which to write an article with, consider this a keep. EJF (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no worthwhile content in this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO. No real content. Belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Pixelface (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We really need a speedy category for for unsourced neologisms that someone made up one day. It's a waste of time having to go through AfD for something like this. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it was a prod contested by the creator. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - creator didn't give a reason for his contesting, did he? Anyway, I have found uses of the term (via a google search, ha ha); however, it seems to be spelt variously as "googleization", "googlization" and "googlelization". I don't think we'll find an encyclopedic treatment of the term when nobody even knows how it's supposed to be spelled, yet; I don't even see a general consensus as to its meaning. The article definitely doesn't explain it at all, as written. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like something someone just randomly thought of to me, non-notable Izzy007 Talk 21:42, 23 March 2008 (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.