Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateapotist


 * 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 Redirect to Russel's teapot -- JForget  23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ateapotist

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism at best, derived from Russell's teapot. I declined the speedy deletion, as I did not feel it met WP:CSD G7. I redirected to Russell's teapot. Creator makes a case on Talk:Ateapotist for full restoration, but I think deletion as a neologism, perhaps something made up one day would be better. I find nothing for this term on google scholar, google books, It does get scant currency on forums, blogs, and I think myspace.Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No relevant ghits. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's nonsense. It's a made up term, between a couple of philosophy grad students. Llamabr (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability for the term. Only uses appear to be in blog posts and other unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Russel's Teapot – harmless, plausible search term. Skomorokh  12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, no redirect. Nonnotable coinagee. Mukadderat (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears to be used on blogs, but no real discussion of the word (as opposed to using it as a synonym for atheist).  It fails WP:NEOLOGISM, and even if it didn't, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RJC Talk Contribs 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because the very first version of this was 100% redundant to existing content at Russell's teapot. Then redirect because redirects are cheap and mostly harmless, and I can't see how this one would be harmful.  GRBerry 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot delete and redirect, it destroys the history. The article is about what appears to be a protologism derived from the Teapot. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need the history for a redirect, only for a merge. There is no reason to merge in content that was already in the target article, and no evidence that anything needs to be added.  GRBerry 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OOps. Too true. Thanks.  Dloh  cierekim  02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no need for a redirect, just delete the thing. Tavix (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and User:Whpq. Fdp (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the term is in use in disscusions about atheism, however it is definitely neologism --37uk (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2008 (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.