Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley of the West


 * 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, Wikipedia is not a collection of anti-Mormon attack pages lacking the slightest encyclopedic content. --- Deville (Talk) 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley of the West
This phrase is a protologism. A google search for this phrase only shows 12 pages of results. Of those, at least four are mirrors of this wikipedia entry and five are completely unrelated to the usage described in the article. This is far below the threshold to even be considered a Neologism Ryan Gardner 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV to boot. Daniel Case 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - coverted from Keep *Keep&mdash; I know that the language evolves, but a phrase was not a neologism or protologism last I checked. Perhaps slang, but we have no policy against slang (& indeed Wikipedia has a ton of it). So one needs to consider the article on its merits.
 * This doesn’t fit any existing article well; it comes most closely to being an example of critics considering the culture of Mormonism to be authoritarian, deceptive, & delusional (which is most certainly POV but survives in an unchallenged article).
 * So this small article could reasonable serve as the nucleus for non-Mormon commentary on the Mormon culture. It is borderline on notability but it does pass the reference criterion (it has references).
 * And unlike Encyclopædia Britannica (EB), which is constrained by physical size and number of editors to a limited number of broad articles and must focus on big topics, Wikipedia can cover both big topics and the niches. Although a minor article, it is factual and Wikipedia is not paper. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The above comment notwithstanding, Neologism explicitly encompasses "words and terms". This one appears to be minimally used and primarily a vehicle for POV. Choess 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that your read is correct; terms can mean "word, word pair, or word group" per the Wikipedia. So I struck my comment above. Well & carefully read. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nuh uh.-Kmaguir1 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism with little evidence of common usage. --Metropolitan90 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although a minor article, it is factual and Wikipedia is not paper. Reswobslc 03:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism with no quality references. The "dictionary" page that it cites is nothing but a humor page. Even within that humor page, the term isn't given it's own definition, but is used as a passing reference in the definition of "BYU". The wikipedia is not paper, but it is not a collection of trash either. --Ryan Gardner 05:32, 10 September 2006 (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.