Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Egalitarianism


 * 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 Moved to user space for creating user, and resulting redirect was speedy deleted G6. Hopefully this can be created per our standards. Non-admin closure. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal Egalitarianism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article - a defined neologism - is a near exact duplicate of Vegalitarianism, which itself is up in AFD as a neologism at the time of this posting. Opened up separately in another AFD as a result, but I'm open to a speedy if the parent AFD doesn't hold out.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and per re-creation of an article already in an AfD. WP:NEO alll the way.  The author of both of these articles has explicitly stated in the Vegalitarianism AfD that he made these words up.   Keeper  |  76  19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I was all set to argue, but when you read WP:NEO it really is clear. Off to Wiktionary for this one. Xymmax (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. Um, no.  Wiktionary doesn't want unverified, unused, made up words either. Did you see "Stig's" comments in the other AfD?  He made them up.   See what Wiktionary has to say about it in either of these places.   Keeper  |  76  19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually was referring to the term in this Afd, which does pull hits under Google, and appears to be a term used in discourse in the vegan/animal rights community. "Vegalitarianism" of course, is another matter. Xymmax (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Dennis and Keeper: I did indeed coin 'vegalitarianism' but 'animal egalitarianism' is not a combination of words made by myself, they already exist as you will see if you search. I am attempting to find a suitable title for my article; rather than trying to find reasons to delete it altogether I would be grateful if you could let me find a solution to this issue. I don't expect your help, naturally, because you seem to be opposed to the content of the article, even it it seeks to make the voices of philosophers past and present, who have and are suggesting that the rights of humans and non-human animals be merged, heard by vegans and carnivores alike. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea that I'm against the content? I don't care about the content to that capacity, and no doubt the concept exists.  It is still a neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the content of the article, and your suggestion here that I'm somehow against animals is absurd, and borders on incivility. I want Wikipedia to have articles that are of real topics.  Not words you made up.  Sorry, you won't sway me on this one, it's pretty much cut and dry.  Whether I eat turkey tomorrow or Tofurkey is irrelevant to this discussion.   Keeper  |  76  19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and potentially block this user if they keep intentionally reintroducing neologisms, against consensus. Blocks are preventative, and were designed for just this type of SPA. Mr Which??? 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found that this term is in use, and the article is cleaned up. Right now, it reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article. If the outcome will be deleted, stig might request userfication to work on the article, and move it to mainspace once it is ready. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeper: Thanks for your reply; please take no offense though -- you have my respect. In your and Dennis' case it was the lack of support and lack of help that made me suppose the motivation for asking for the article to be deleted was more than simply adhering to the policies of Wikipedia. Compounding this impression is the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism;' it contains an abundance of evidence most participating editors are against the ideas expressed in the article. I refer to "hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism" and "sorry, veggies," et cetera. If there would be any support, I would expect to see some help in re-phrasing the title rather than suggesting the deletion of the article altogether. Further, the article is not about the word but about a well-established concept. Also, I did not make up 'Animal Egalitarianism,' that is an existing combination of words, and I put this article up in a good-willed attempt (I also announced it on the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism') to find an acceptable title for the article should 'Vegalitarianism' turn out not to be suitable. Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk)
 * ...ah, now it's clear. Many times, we use humor in an AFD when we feel a bit snarky - it doesn't mean we're against the ideals, though, it means we're just having a fit of silly.  It would be hard to explain here, but if you look for a song called "Carrot Juice is Murder", you'll understand the joke. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Stig, I'll reply on your talk page so that this discussion doesn't get to clogged with distractions.  Keeper  |  76  20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Which: please do not think I am trying to evade the policies of Wikipedia; I am, as I told Keeper above, trying to find a suitable title for a legitimate article on non-speciesist egalitarianism that is a non-neologistic term. I had just started on the article when it was labeled for deletion; me, as well as other, more prominent philosophers and writers, will be working on it over time to offer a complete insight on the subject. -- Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the article clearly violates WP:NEO Chris!  c t 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest stig blanks the page, making it an eligable candidate for G7, and then have it userfied to his page for further work, and possible reintroduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 22 November 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.