Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralazation


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Centralazation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a very common term that's been given a new definition that I can't find any source supporting in this way, and it's certainly not the widespread use. There's no sources, and perhaps the creator has some particular author's interpretation in mind, but that is not the common use of the word.

Nor do I think the more common form of "centralisation" has any distinction from say Centralized planning, etc.

tldr - a neogolism or a very specific use of a term that's not a widespread notable use Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to centralisation as a plausible typo → Σ  τ  c . 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem very likely typo but that's just my spur of the moment opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Original research essay, lots of POV, no references, possible neologism. not sure redirect is appropriate, as the proposed destination article does not actually talk about this subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect Google gives 603 hits and it seems to be a misspelling (or alternative spelling) of centralisation. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect - I suspect the author meant to share their (POV, totally unencyclopaedic) views on centralisation but misspelled it. In so doing, they proved that at least someone thinks centralisation is spelled that way so we may as well redirect to centralisation. --Lincolnite (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete misspelled word to begin with. Article is OR, NPOV, and completely un-sourced.   78.26  (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing here worth keeping. It consists of a mixture of point of view and factually inaccurate statements. It is not a plausible misspelling, and the argument "one person in the world has once spelt it that way, so it must be a worthwhile redirect" is invalid: we keep likely misspellings, not possible but highly improbable ones. Also, if for some reason the redirect is considered worthwhile, then that is not a reason for keeping the history of the present useless article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per et cetera. JBW, how about just deleting this is a hoax? The content is a bunch of nonsense. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy as hoax or just delete, unsourced essay. Hairhorn (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete pure essay. Safiel (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I undid the redirect of the article, as this AfD is still active. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR or essay at best, hoax at worst. EricSerge (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - semi-literate nonsense, possibly an attempt to coin a neologism or to totally redefine an existing word in order to promulgate some incomprehensible ideological suggestion. No place here; not a genuinely plausible redirect. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. Sufficiently plausible for a redirect in my opinion.  After all "redirects are cheap" but no need to keep this content in the history.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2011 (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.