Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bizographics

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizographics[edit]

This article exists to promote a neologism that does not appear to have become notable outside of the website that invented it. The article appears to exist primarily to promote a particular website, and is of no value to an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the neologism, but there is no other word in the english language to describe the principle of the business demographics of a person. Given the importance of this principle, it seems to be an appropriate addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Russell Glass

That's what WP:NEO is about - Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new usage or introduce new words to the language. It's an interesting topic, but when enough third-party sources discuss it, it will have an accepted name, and we will have sources for an article. Until then, I vote delete, I'm afraid. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Russell Glass, creating an article for something you promote, and have done an interview in Reuters about, sounds like advertising, which I believe the rules clearly state means it must be deleted. I vote delete based on self advertising. Reuters does count as a notable 3rd part source, so if someone else had written it and linked to that news article, then it would've been fine by me. Dream Focus (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. GlassCobra 11:25, 25 November 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.