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 keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geodemography[edit]

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

Is this article contrary to Wiki policy on neologisms, or has there been a paradaigm shift in the way organisations club together to create a spammy article? In the spirit of geodemocracy, let me know what you think. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, no doubt, but with quite a few Google hits.--Ispy1981 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but how about getting some editors together that care about wikipedia and are motivated to do the hard work of research and writing, as a counterpoise to this deletionsist thing that seems viral and rampant. Wikipedia can cope with this type of subject if it wants to keep up to date, but yes, it is harder to be an inclusionist and get it right, against such a tide of surgeons. Maybe the ostrichs out there are happy with not looking at the reality of life, geese do it to, i chased them and they simply put their head behind a tree and pretended I wasnt there. Until i picked them up. whatever, its not gonna make that much difference out here, enjoy being right for a few years until you catch up with the rest of society guys. This term is at least 5 years old and used by many people on a daily basis, including me. its up to you to verify that, or pretend its not actually happening and take the path of least resistance. i am amazed at how much is lost in this space.. I have no knowledge of the conspiracy so I think tahts a red herring designed to support the delete case. The New Zealand Government has used and given to the world this style of data for at least 5 years online and twice that on desktop. see here: WEBMAP.. moza

• Keep – The term is now widely enough used that I don't think avoid neologisms is applicable. The term appears in some business/marketing dictionaries (for example [1]), and in the title of at least one published book (George J. Demko, Gregory Ioffe, and Zhanna Zaionchkovskaya, Population Under Duress: The Geodemography of Post-Soviet Russia, Westview Press, 1999). It also appears to be widely used in scholarly articles—a search in Google scholar yielded 163 hits [2]. The article isn't very good, but it satisfies notability criteria and there appears to be plenty of source material available. The solution is to improve the article, not to delete it. Sanpete Slim 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. moza and Sanpete Slim make great arguments. Indeed, it does violate WP:NEO, but, in light of the hard work that has obviously been put in, I think this is a case of WP:Ignore all rules if it involves improving the encyclopedia. I think that it could use some citations and expansions, but it's a good starting article.Bwowen 03:02, 16 June 2007 (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.