Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackergotchi

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. Consensus is "delete". Compelling arguments were made for a re-direct, but it is not at all clear what the redirect target should be. Therefore closing as delete, but there should be no objections if re-created as a re-direct. Since there is no reliable sourcing, deleting instead of searching for an appropriate redirect target is appropriate per WP:PRESERVE., 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hackergotchi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this blog term per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the topic is about blogging it will be hard to find normal RIS. However the term has survived in use for more than a decade and there are certainly multiple sources referring to it, so it may be notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the sources are from blogs, but a quick WP:BEFORE search would have found [1] and [2] in google scholar and [3] from linux.com. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comte0: I did follow BEFORE, as I already stated. I can't even read either source because this isn't in English and this needs a subscription. Would you care to share how in depth the coverage is? We can't have an article only based on instructions on how to create one. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- You're right, the sources I posted do not meet the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry about that. Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- When it comes to BEFORE or anything else, don't assume that an editor knows a language other than English and that they have a subscription to a source. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, all sources must be evaluated, including the ones in languages you do not speak. Requiring that all sources be in english leads to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn’t invalidate them! I only asked you how big of a mention the term received in those sources. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blog. The only refernence of any use I could find, which Comte0 id'd, is the IEEE paper but the term appears in exactly one sentence about it, as to define the term. Nothing else is sufficient RS to use here. But its a valid search term, so redirect w/ brief def in Blog works. --Masem (t) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sourcing found, obscure neologism unlikely to attract notability or sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a Redirect somewhere is warranted. It's not made up, but it's also an unsourced article about something we have other articles about, like avatar (computing) (most likely) and signature block (the only page to actually mention it). Otherwise Delete, as I don't see enough to satisfy WP:GNG — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to redirecting to blog if it's mention there, btw. But there's nothing to merge here as there are no sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as it’s primarily a description of term, would the sourcing available support a copy to Wiktionary? Mccapra (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect seem the most reasonable, it's clear there isn't significant coverage in RS'. The passing mention at Signature block#Internet forums could be a redirect location, it shouldn't be too hard to expand that line to include a simple definition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:42, 28 October 2019 (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.