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. Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geozone[edit]

As per WP:N. There isn't a single source I can find to state that a "Geozone" is a Geographic Zone. This page is very trivial. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP is not a dictionary, unless the article is speedy expanded into an encyclopediac topic. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article has grown, it's just an encyclopedic one and it's enough for a stub.--Auslli (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HighwaytoHell (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — HighwaytoHell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note – user provides no reason for rationale. MuZemike 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is maybe just a stub, but there are so many stubs in Wikipedia. It will be worth to see if the entry will grow - I think the theme is interesting and future-related.----Eldrewitsch (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 2009-03-19 20:29:45
- Comment: The article Geography does not include the term "geozone." If reliable sources are not added soon, I consider the term to be a non-notable neologism. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coment: I have added more links. One of them is from the California State (Geozone for Kids) and the other ones are more generalistic about geozones. There are 260,000 entries in yahoo with "Geozone", so I believe that this article perfectly could be considered at least as a stube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auslli (talk • contribs) 2009-03-20 16:36:06

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, if one plugs the word into a search engine, pages result. The number isn't relevant. But what is relevant is that none of them appear to define a coherent concept, shared by any two, of what a "geozone" is. The links supplied by Auslli really don't. They are just nonce word names for web sites. The "Geozone for Kids" WWW site, for example, doesn't document anything called a "geozone". That's simply a playful and enticing name for a section of a WWW site aimed at a youth audience.
Searching, I find plenty of people defining geozones. But they are all nonce definitions, of a "geographic zone" of some kind, whose only usage is in the same context where they are defined. For example, page 193 of ISBN 9780849333491 defines a concept of a geozone. It's apparently copied pretty much word-for-word from a 2006 Microsoft patent application, and I can find no evidence that it has escaped that patent application into software, let alone into the minds of anyone else other than the people who wrote the application. I have my doubts that it even qualifies as human knowledge at all. Certainly the people who copied the patent application word-for-word into their book don't give the appearance of understanding what it is, otherwise they'd have explained it better, in their own words. Every other thing that purports to define what geozones are — and there aren't that many of them — is the same. Even the notion of a geozone in the linguasphere language code is not a generalized concept found anywhere outside of that specific context.
There's just no coherent concept, other than the woolly "It's a geographic zone, of some sort.", to be had. Putting together one would require us to synthesize a novel concept in Wikipedia where one does not exist in the world at large, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article admits it is "a word that actually have many interpretations" and per Uncle G there is not enough agreement to make anything but a vague and woolly article. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree for two strong reasons 1) as "WP is not a dictionary" and 2) neologism Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm no geologist, so perhaps an article on this could exist. But the entirety of this article comes off as confusing nonsense. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 30 March 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.