Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peopletizing

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. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peopletizing

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable neologism - for example the book from which it originates doesn't have a page & has an Amazon sales rank of 1.7M. Even if it was somehow notable it would still fail WP:DICTDEF. ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page's author (who appears to be the book's author - Chad L. Coe) wrote the following when contesting the PROD - "This word has been used for over 5 years now. In Deerfield IL. many people use the word and concept of it on a regular basis. We are in the process of creating a group on Facebook and Linkedin as well. I understand that via the web there are not many other users of it. There are more and more everyday. Please allow us to have it on Wikipedia." --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. This is what Urban Dictionary is for. Drawn Some (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local neologism failing the guideline for neologisms. The article is also a conflict of interest as the page's main author's username is very similar to the author of the book that contains the term. A quick Google search provides only results from the local area where the term is used, as well as stores selling the book that started the neologism. A search on Google News brings up only press releases for lectures based around the book. No other reliable sources can be found, and the article is unreferenced. Also a possible self-promotion by the page's writer to promote their book. In conclusion, this article should be deleted as a local, non notable neologism. If the author reads this comment, I would strongly suggest the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Nn Cv² 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an example of "the power of Adver-tizing". Google news search yields [1] some mention in two articles in Chicago's newspapers in 2006. Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's book. It's unappletizing. Mandsford (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. No reliable sources; also appears to be WP:COI, WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons Cnilep enumerates. Do I sense WP:SNOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 24 May 2009 (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.