Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accounting Darwinism


 * 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.  Singu larity  03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounting Darwinism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Precisely 4 google hits, all referring to text. In over 20 years of business, never heard it used once. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; non-notable description (that would in any case fail WP:DICDEF). AfD = Article Darwinism in action ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because the term has not gained wide acceptance; i.e. WP:NEO. Shalom Hello 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable term that apparently is a blurb in single book. We all have a rough idea what the author means, but it doesn't merit an article. ... Kenosis 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What next, Motion Picture Darwinism? Computer Darwinism? VHS vs Betamax Darwinism? Bah.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and unsourced. Although, to be honest I must say I do like this article because it shows how fanatical & wrong many evolutionists are. --PEAR (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, please do explain. ROFLMFAO.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no basis for an article here. Sxeptomaniac 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BigFishy 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing more than a neologism. You could slap "Darwinism" on pretty much any concept. J I P  | Talk 05:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Smells of original research, but I am not sure. Bearian 02:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.