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. henrik•talk 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africapitalism[edit]

Africapitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable neologism coined in 2011. Perhaps later, but not yet, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An obvious "thing we made up last week" neologism. Google suggests it has been used once in December though the validity of the source is open to question. No reason to keep it here at all. doktorb _words^deeds 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it was made up by Tony Elumelu and is described in Forbes.[1]. I'm counting over 3k g-hits. Rklawton (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Elumelu as a new NEO that has a little coverage but in a very narrow area. As for the number of ghits, no one cares, as that isn't a reason to keep or delete in a blog filled world where a silly word like Funktastic gets 982,000 ghits, yet isn't notable. It might catch on, it might not, redirects are cheap, and in this case, appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - I think the salient point is that one of the most influential men in Africa is using the term and it's being repeated in business journals. Thus far more people care than would care about street slang. Rklawton (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, comparing it to "street slang" is meaningless. The question is if it passes WP:N or any subset, not how it compares to anything else here on Wikipedia. It might someday, I believe that, which is why I said to redirect. But it doesn't seem to yet. Based on my reading of the guidelines for inclusion, it comes up short. For now. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't comparing it to anything else on Wikipedia. It's who all is using it that may make it notable. Something made up by some kid after school one day isn't notable (street slang). Something made up by one of the most influential people on a continent and picked up by the media is a different story entirely. Rklawton (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is being 'repeated in business journals' and those are reliable sources then cite it in the article and the discussion changes. As it stands it is a non notable neoligism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real indications of notability or usage, and I've noticed a concerted effort on the page creator's part to start promotional articles for Tony Elumelu and organizations connected to him it's definitely a WP:SPA account. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and may violate WP:COI. The notability of the individual who coins a term is not transferred to the term and it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I suggest that if the term appears in Oxford Dict. in the future then it can be reconsidered; now it fails WP:N without doubt.

MadZarkoff (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per MadZarkoff, and, especially WP:NEO. Wikipedia has not been the place for words coined last year, unless it becomes an extraordinary fad. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 14:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Elumelu#Philosophy, which discusses this term, seems appropriate. No standalone notability, however. Rlendog (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (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.