Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech Coast

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 as a neologism that is not widely used. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tech Coast

This article is of a topic that almost literally only exists on Wikipedia.org. The term is a neologism and lacks creditable notability, as even stated within the article itself. The basis of the article is also original research. --Fcsuper (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The term is a neologism which is essentially used solely by the Tech Coast Angels, a venture capital group, and no one else. In contrast, everyone uses Silicon Valley to refer to Silicon Valley. I have argued extensively in favor of deletion of this article at Talk:Tech Coast and I am pleased to see that Fcsuper has initiated the process.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Formatting issues fixed in this afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• keep - very searchable term. It is used not only by "Angels". Of course, itr is heavily promoted, but for this reason people would like to read about it. The article must be heavily cleaned of "original research". Mukadderat (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Of course I vote for delete. It is not a searchable item at all, as suggested by another. Only company names come up on Yahoo! and Google. No supporting articles or sources (creditable or otherwise) establish this as an actual topic. This wiki article is almost literally the only place this topic appears, which makes this 100% original research. In other words, if OR was removed, there would be nothing left about this topic. It is promotional in nature for a particular company and blog and not an actual recognized term in use. The only article I did find was an editorial piece (likely written by that same Angel group) way back in 1998. If notability and creditability can be established at some later date, I invite the restoration of this article. Until this, it is not wikiworthy. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 02:47, 1 August 2008 (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.