Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technomotive


 * 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. Evil saltine (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Technomotive

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable neologism. A knol article doth not notability make, and I can find little or no coverage outside of that. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Firstly this is a dictionary definition, and so shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. There is no point transwikiing it to Wiktionary as I cannot find any evidence of the word being used this way in any books or newsgroups (the typical durably archived sources required by Wiktionary). Note that TechnoMotive is/was a manufacturer and/or brand of computer chips for in-car computers as far as I can work out. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A definition of a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable neologism as per above.Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Author There is no evidence of the use of this term other than in the Knol article, does this mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia? If so, I guess you can delete it. Suppose I can recreate it in the future, if it is found to be used by others. Merarischroeder (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are encyclopaedic articles about the term and require evidence of notability, including coverage of the topic (not just the word) in multiple independent reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Wiktionary is a dictionary counterpart to Wikipedia, entries there are dictionary definitions of terms (e.g. etymology, pronunciation, part of speech, example usage, etc). Entries there must also be verifiable, but the criteria there is evidence of use of the word (see use-mention distinction) in independent, durably archived sources (typically books, newspapers, magazines, newsgroups, journals, etc, not (potentially) transient websites or internet fora) over a period of at least 1 year, ideally over at least 3 years. As it stands, the page you are the author of is more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopaedia article (compare the Wikipedia article Cat and the Wiktionary entry cat), and so if you were to resubmit it in its present form it would be better added at Wiktionary when you have found the requisite citations. If you want to resubmit it to Wikipedia in future, you will need to rewrite it so it is more encyclopaedic and include the evidence of coverage about the topic that meets the verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (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.