Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google duel


 * 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. Secret account 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Google duel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictionary definition with no indication of wide or notable usage. Zim Zala Bim talk  13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete - Clearly no justifcation for an article of its own BritishWatcher (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article, I admit it's short but it's certainly a notable phenomenon - just look at any talk page on Wikipedia where editors dispute the use of a word or phrase - their automatic reaction is to resort to this tactic of googling their favoured term. I don't think it'll ever deserve a long article, but hey, this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, as we say here:) Furthermore, I tried to add a link to "http://cgi.sfu....ca/~gpeters/cgi-bin/pear/writers.php" (remove three of those dots before 'ca' to access link) but the link was rejected for being on a blacklist - even though the link provides some perspective on the phenomenon's usefulness. Malick78 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is an academic paper that used a website called Google Duel to, erm, google duel. Malick78 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this conference paper references the website. But it is not a peer-reviewed publication. The mention is trivial, and does not establish that the term itself is notable. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to "Clearly no justifcation for an article of its own": Huh!? Is that really your argument? Please use WP policies to justify your points. This isn't a vote, this is a debate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep — certainly verifiable given the source from the abovementioned academic paper. What is the blacklisted article about? Can you give an summary/abstract about it. It needs some more stuff, however, to fully-establish my perceived requirements for notability, but I think it's on the right path as of now. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The blacklisted link is a site that allows writers to compare upto ten different versions of a phrase, in order to see which one 'sounds the best' - ie, which is used most by writers on the internet.
 * Keep - As long as it is verifiable it does note an information age phenomenon. It has more than just a dictionary amount of information. I feel it's a usefull piece of data that might fit in another article but shouldn't be deleted. I was able to load the previously mentioned web site without any problems. --Sultec (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 *(UTC)


 * Hmmm......I'd like to see 'significant coverage.' That Charlottesville page, that's hardly coverage (in fact, it's not coverage at all--it proves that it exists and explains what it is), and the paper cited provides commentary only in passing. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ten seconds on google showed that significant coverage does exist. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Those sources aren't very substantial at all. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So? You haven't established that reliable sources don't exist. A quick google search shows that they certainly do. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My quick Google search reveals ~800 hits, and none at first glance appear to be reliable sources. Which are you finding? -- Zim Zala Bim talk  15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's not a dicdef and it meets the notability requirements (i.e. coverage in multiple independent secondary sources). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide examples of the "coverage in multiple independent secondary sources". -- Zim Zala Bim talk  15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- I can't find anything resembling the substantial independent coverage we need to justify this article. Reyk  YO!  19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles dedicated to terms are not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia as they don't fit. They can be mentioned on some other site dedicated to terms. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you show us evidence? Not that it will affect where I stand on this articles inclusion. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concluded based on the sources and external links in the article that this is a notable subject and that it would be better to expand and improve the article than to delete it. They aren't great sources, that's for sure. But they aren't horrible either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But what sources are they?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. All that's included in the article is a random definition on a low content amateur blog/website, and trivial mention in a random conference paper that was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. How are these sufficient to establish notability of what increasingly appears to be little more than a neologism. -- Zim Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Googlefight. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The phenomenon obviously exists as has been described: a) people google to prove which variant of a phrase is more popular, and b) this can be used by linguists and non-native speakers to study a language. I don't think anyone can argue with that. What may put people off is the apparent 'neologism'-like name of the article. So, how about a compromise. This article uses the phrase 'linguistic data mining' - could that be a new title for the article in question?


 * 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.