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. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technological osmosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This stub is essentially a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources that match the current content are sparse. "Technological osmosis" gets 102 unique Google hits, doesn't show up in Google News, and none of the hits in Google Scholar indicate that its use as a turn of phrase (with variable meaning and context) is based on this being a notable concept. — Scientizzle 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia isn't for stuff belonging in urban dictionary. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete limited ghits, most not referring to this. Not for things made up at school springs to mind. Nuttah (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2010 (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.