Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasshole

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 merge to Google Glass#Reception. LFaraone 20:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasshole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism coined in Urban Dictionary, and stub doesn't contain enough reliable sources to establish notability on the neologism beyond commentary about a wider topic (Google Glass) rather than the term itself. The sources present in the article so far don't show any substantial evidence of notability beyond a trivial coinage and its apparent "trending" usage. Among the 4 sources cited, SFChronicle gives around ten lines of "pop culture"-style commentary, and the other three sources seem to op-ed type sources commenting on the Google Glass rather than the term. One source, the Atlantic Wire source is misleading as the title gives the assumption that linguists have specifically analyzed the neologism, "glasshole", but they haven't, and the article goes on a ramble about an individual linguist's commentary on the term "asshole", and misleadingly associates that individual's commentary with this neologism. In any case, what essentially amounts to 3 sources that mention the topic is not enough to establish notability on this neologism. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: also doesn't provide enough new/notable content to warrant an article. This will only end up being a perma-stub. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neologism with very weak sources, so not notable either, and in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Google Glass#Reception. This article is just a dictionary definition, while the main article discusses the topic of people behaving like assholes/illegally. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This info has been repeatedly censored out of the main article, Google Glass by M0rphzone. [1], [2],[3], [4] It is no longer discussed there. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever you'd like, but the removal has already been discussed and justified in the talk page. You have no valid reasons for adding it to the article beyond WP:ILIKEIT. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG with the coverage and use in Forbes Magazine,^[1] the San Francisco Chronicle^[2], ZDnet^[3], the MIT Technology Review^[4] the New Statesman^[5] and Computerworld.^[6] Hardly weak sources by any definition.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Half of the sources you cite don't specifically talk about the "glasshole" neologism, which is by far not the main topic of discussion or relevance/importance in those blog-style opinion pieces. Specifically, as I pointed out above, the SFChronicle is not a reliable source as it's essentially a ten-line-long ad page; the MIT Tech Review piece and ZDnet piece are talking about the Google Glass and its early restrictions/launch procedures, not the Glasshole neologism; the Forbes author writes about his experience and personal opinions on the Glass, where the only mention is a link pointing to the Urban Dictionary entry; and the NewStatesman piece talks about the wider implications of technology giants and engineers running the world, not this glasshole neologism. The point is, anyone can do a cherry-picked Google search for "glasshole" and find sources that mention the term, but that doesn't mean it's the main topic of discussion or that it's notable enough to merit its own article. Wikipedia is not for dictionary-type entries such as this one. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redircet to Google Glass as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until/unless there's evidence that the neologism catches on beyond a couple mentions on blogs. polarscribe (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A few instances of usage in blogs, even reliable blogs, does not make a neologism notable. The sources also seem to differ wildly on what the term seems to mean, so a lot of it seems to be an attempt at using a clever wording to increase page hits rather than an actual term with any consistent meaning. - SudoGhost 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Google Glass#Reception. I'm not yet seeing the level of coverage about the term (not just using the term) to justify a stand-alone article. The term would make a perfectly good redirect, though, and there is some material in there worth saving, so I don't see a need for deletion outright. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Google Glass#Reception or Google Glass#Criticism if it is ever started. This is a bad name for an encyclopedic topic, what could be said about "glasshole" that would not fit better in a putative Criticism of Google Glass article? --A3 nm (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2013 (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.