Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersectarianism


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cybersectarianism

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

author is using wikipedia to promote her own protologism. Wikipedia is NOT a Dictionary Wuhwuzdat (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article describes more than the meaning of the word, and (now I've added a reflist to it) is apparently well-sourced.  A word used in the title of a book published by a mainstream publisher in 2003 is hardly a "protologism".  Needs cleanup, not deletion. JulesH (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism. There are only 19 ghits for Cybersectarianism and 11 hits, not all of them different, for "cyber sectarianism" once you remove references to Irish politics. It may be a notable word one day, but certainly not at the moment andy (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm finding sources:, , and another book by one of the same authors already cited: .  Here's a news source using the word:   Neologism?  Yes, but it appears people have picked up this word and started using it.  Cazort (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - that doesn't answer the policy issues. Very few people are using this term, it's brand new, and it's a dictionary definition. andy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article as-is is already more than a dictionary definition. Yes, it's a new term, but it's also a very new phenomenon.  Cazort (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, assuming the sources listed support the text - It's more than a dictionary definition just as communism is more than one. My only concern would be that the concept isn't notable and the text would border on OR. The focus on whether or not it's a dictionary definition, though, is misguided. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Prof. Thornton coined the term as part of a Fulbright Scholar report: . The article appears to meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced article on a term that has at least some acceptance. In my opinion, this article is actually more important because of the neologism; people who encounter the term will likely search for more information, and the goal of a respectable encyclopedia should be to provide that information. –  7 4   21:36, 24 February 2009 (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.