Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argumentum ad Google

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. Ironic as it may be, a Google search turns up minimal results that mostly reference the Wikipedia article in some way. No sources given, no sources found. Delete as such. Wickethewok 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletechanged to transwiki below per nom. Lexis and google turn up nothing. Google results. Neat idea. Not encyclopedic yet.--Kchase T 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subprotoneologism. (Just like the word subprotoneologism, which I just made up.) It is a nice idea though. --tjstrf 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NEO in the worst way. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I note the delightful strange loop in using the very concept to disprove itself (I wonder if its inventor planned that?)...incidentally, as a message for the inventor, I think the correct grammar would be "argumentum ad Googlem", but anyway. Byrgenwulf 06:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Cordesat. --BrownHairedGirl 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, although since this appears to be an "argument from Google", the correct Latin would be "argumentum ex Google" or perhaps "argumentum ab Google", supposing that Google is a 3rd declension noun. Just sayin'. Snurks^TC 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The irony here abounds.

  Looking at Talk:Argumentum ad Google I find the link to the French Wikipedia article fr:Argumentum ad Google. Reading that article's talk page, fr:Discuter:Argumentum ad Google, I see that the same concerns have been raised there as here, and that the response has been to cite sources such as Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything and this. (this also discusses the argument, but cites Wikipedia as its source.) Those all call it Argumentum ad Googlum, which explains why Wickethewok's Google Web search for Argumentum ad Google didn't find anything. However, the discussion on the French Wikipedia talk page focuses more on the validity of the argument rather than upon citing sources, the sources are sparse, and the sources certainly don't support the contents of either the French or English Wikipedia articles. It does appear that this is mostly original research that began on the French Wikipedia and that has metastasized onto the English and Serbian ones over the years. This does not belong in the main article namespace.

  On the gripping hand, it might be worth moving this into the project namespace and incorporating it into Wikipedia:Search engine test, which discusses the various failings of the Google Test. Uncle G 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to protect the Universe from Strange Loops and Gödelian Implosion. Anville 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. While I would delete this from encyclopedia space as OR, this strikes me as meta material more than encyclopedia material, and would be perfectly at home among the several essays explaining editing philosophies. FWIW, the name was apparently coined by analogy with argumentum ad populum, but there an appeal is made to mass popularity. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Meta per Smerdis of Tlon.--Kchase T 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice concept and it does have a point, but seems too original research-ish. --Ted87 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Meta. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, unsourced probably made up. BrokenSegue

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.