Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conducive Isocracy


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Conducive Isocracy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable term coined by a book's author. No evidence from Google of use by anyone but him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- it is not a real thing, it was just written by one person. Spumuq (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No relevant secundary sources. Article states it is a phrase coined by author, yet the only source is by the author. -- Taketa (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is spam masquerading as original research about a phrase made up just last year. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. The fact that it was created by a SPA whose username is User:Qrusader indicates that this is a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. WP:OR being perhaps the main reason, essentially the word is a springboard into the futzy futzy world of POV. Also possibly WP:NEOLOGISM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (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.