Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrainWashington


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BrainWashington

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

Contested prod. Neologism, and not one that has caught on sufficiently to warrant a wikipedia article. Apparently created several years ago, but registering only about 1700 English language non-WP ghits, which seems pretty low if it has gained much acceptance. The term may be used in German, which it is claimed, but certainly doesn't seem to have much usage in English. There also appears to be significant conflict of interest - the website linked to has the same name as the creator of this article, who is also named User:BrainWashington. It is more than possible, given the coincidence of names, that this is at least partly intended as an ad. Delete. Grutness...wha?  06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: unsourced neologism created by a user with conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously COI and original research at work here. This probably could have been speedy deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - an attempt to popularize a relatively unused neologism. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Flewis (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious neologism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as is 1. Self-promotion is not the purpose. My real name and identity are posted nowhere on wikipedia and are not promoted in the source materials. My own site promotes the work of other authors I have never even met. I am offering an entry for historical usage. The popularity of a term has nothing to do with the veracity. As for the claim of advertisement, there is no advertising. There are no solicitations for money or material gain, no calling attention to any profitable business or enterprise. The term is used in songs, in newspapers and magazines, and in other media that some of the editors of wikipedia would not consider "mainstream." Is that the real reason you want the article deleted? As for neologism, I did not claim to coin this word and the word has been in use at least since 2001. There is not a single objection to the veracity and accuracy of the article itself, so it should stand. Bait and switch? Some are calling for DELETE when they could call for EXPAND. Is there really a cause to delete a definition of a real word used widely by real people who have no connection to the entry author?Brainwashington —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:11, 21 October 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.