Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasagna Panel


 * 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   speedy delete. I think it is clear that the editor has admitted there is no published evidence yet, & withdrawn the article, which can of course be rec-created whensufficient reliably sourced material is found.  DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lasagna Panel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Supposed technical term. No sources provided and I can't get any hits on Google. It could be a very specific technical term in which case there may be grounds to keep it or it may well be a privately created term by the page creator that isn't widely used, in which case it should be deleted. At the moment WP:V Travelbird (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the discussion, I've heard this term used in three different contexts this year. GreenInker (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note - I have now moved the page to Lasagne Panel, the proper spelling. GreenInker (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and  pretty well says it all.  Hasn't caught on, and, given the questions of spelling it and having to explain it, I will be surprised if it ever does catch on. Mandsford 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The links you give seem to be Google searches - I am unclear of what they are meant to be "saying".  And I don't understand the relevance of something having to be explained meaning it isn't valid.  Did you know what a pecha kucha was without it being explained? GreenInker (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but there are many places where I could look. The links are meant to be saying that, at 12 or 13 hits, this is an extremely obscure phrase.  Pecha kucha has 670,000 hits, so it doesn't suffer from that problem.  The part of having to be explained has to do with why I would be surprised if it ever becomes a common phrase.  In other words, if the listener's reaction is going to be "why do they call it _______?"-- the article doesn't explain what the analogy to lasagna is-- then it's not likely to become a popular expression.  My guess is no better than anyone else's about whether it will become well-known.  However, there's no doubt that it currently isn't.  Mandsford 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you miss my point about "pecha kucha". First time I heard that, I had no idea what it's etymology was.  That hasn't stopped it becoming a common phrase over the past couple of years.  Yes, it generates a lot of Google hits now, but I bet it didn't when it first started being used with that meaning - Google follows usage, not vice versa, I think.  Is Wikipedia policy that only once a concept has lots of Google hits can it become an article.  A grumpy person might wonder what the point would be of Wikipedia if just summarised Google searches :) GreenInker (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy pretty well turns upon whether something is notable, and it's a complex set of rules at WP:N. What it defines as "notable topics"-- i.e., those that would get their own article-- are "those that have been 'noticed' to a significant degree by independent sources", and it goes on to say that "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources."  There are some topics that get to bypass that shallow standard by being declared inherently notable, such as a national or state legislator from anywhere in the world and any era, most of whom wouldn't get lots of "buzz" on the internet.  Everything else comes down to proof of significant coverage.  True, Google is not the only way to prove that something has gotten significant notice or coverage.  However, search engines do provide a common means of verifiability if an assertion, in that anyone who uses Wikipedia also has search tools.  I think that your reasoning may be that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that people would consult an encyclopedia if they came across an unfamiliar term like "lasagne panel", and that, therefore, the term should be on Wikipedia.  However, there's still a threshold requirement that a coined term has to demonstrate notability, like any other topic, before it gets its own page.  There's a branch of this called "Wiktionary" for new words and phrases, accessible from the main page here. Mandsford 13:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - whatever the rules say. I guess we just come back in a few months when there is some evidence of it on Google, and do it then. GreenInker (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.