Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galapagos Effect

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. — Scientizzle 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Galapagos Effect

Article combines two really separate topics -- each may be notable on their own, but not together -- 1) The insular nature of the Galapagos Islands; 2) The insular nature of Japan's cell phone market, dubbed "The Galapagos Effect" ---- An article with this title would have to primarily be about (1) --- while (2) is less an example than an allusion Editor437 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So delete the non-notable one instead of AfD'ing the whole, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My reading of the article is that the term "Galapogos Effect" is being used to identify that the Japanese Cellphoen market is isolated list the Galapogos Islands allowing it to evolve differently from other cell phone markets due to isolation. A search through google news shows only the one article used as a reference. The term "Galapogos Effect" also appears to be used in economics, and also separately in biology when searching through Google Book and Google Scholar. However, the usage there does not match the content of this article. I say delete as a neologism. If the other senses of the phrase are notable, an article can be created for them, but the material from this article is not the basis for any such new article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Google shows it was used in one newspaper (sited in article) and in one blog. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:01, 3 September 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.