Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rf plumbing

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 speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rf plumbing

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

This topic does not have notability, and it lacks sources. Also, see WP:WINAD Aus0107 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both a dicdef and a failed attempt to create a false buzzword for propagating radio signals through a building. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will openly admit that I am not an expert on this, but I did find this 1946 patent and this one from 1950 that use the term pretty heavily in roughly the same context. There are some differences but the basic idea seems to be sort of the same. The idea of him having coined the term is also up for debate as well, since the guy's Linkedin shows that he started college in the 60s, which would put him in middle or high school when these patents were filed. This looks like some guy's attempt to put a new spin on a pre-existing term and then claim that he created it in an attempt to gain publicity. Basically I do see some usage of the term, but if this is going to be kept in any way it would have to be completely re-written to remove this guy's spam from it and to make it encyclopedic enough for either this website or Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. I am finding more usage of the term in various academic texts (again, all from a time period where it wouldn't really be feasible for this guy to have invented the term) so there may be some justification for the term to be somewhere, but this version of the article would have to be TNT'd to remove the sheer self-promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as G11 since this is pretty unambiguous self-promotion/spam. I have no problem with someone wanting to write an article about the term or maybe putting it in Wiktionary, but it should be done in a more neutral format than this and it should take into account the history of the term. I can't find anything to show that this guy created/coined this term at all. The only thing that backs up this claim is this Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (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.