Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionist


 * 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 Speedy delete. Author requested deletion through creating this afd. Hiding Talk 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletionist
I'm not voting As a newcomer to Wikipedia, perhaps one of the few in-words I know is "deletionist". I personally think it is a real word which although possibly mostly found in Wikipedia does deserve an entry on its own.

I tried to find the "suggest an article" link, but its gone (or I couldn't find it).

My reason for suggesting this article is that I came across the term before I really knew anything about Wikipedia. So, unlike many other inventions it does have an external scope to Wikipedia. This is not a frivolous suggestion, I'm being serious that I think it exists as something that is worthy of an entry, and not knowing how else to discuss it I created the article for deletion! --Mike 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a self referential neologism. Resolute 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Haseler created both the article itself, and attempted to create this AfD. I corrected the templates so it shows up in the log. Resolute 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-referential - There don't seem to be any sources that discuss this outside the context of Wikipedia (or mirrors of it).  Neologism - Even if it is applied to the wiki world outside of Wikipedia, it's too new to have its own article. ...  disco spinster   talk  13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy as this seems more like a personal statement than anything else. Possibly a sandbox attempt. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-referential, plays into the hands of tha haterz (as the youngsters might have it)Ac@osr 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a serious suggestion - Sorry, about the junk left by my template. It now just contains a non-wikipedia quote and the first link to a non-wikipedia site I found. As I said the term is known outside the Wikipedia workspace - this is probably one of the hardest articles to vote on because those involved are too close! Best regards --Mike 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it is one of the easiest to vote on. Another blog is not a reliable source, thus this article fails WP:V and WP:RS.  IMO, it also fails WP:WINAD and WP:NEO. Resolute 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedily if possible, while wondering what the creator/nominator is playing at. --Pak21 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete per WP:POINT after comments below --Pak21 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll write a serious article, I'll find the sources, I'll even delete if it proves impossible to write - but I'm not going to try unless I get some kind of assurance it won't be deleted by the first button happy person that finds it! --Mike 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you are attempting to use this article and/or AfD as some kind of support for your proposed reform of the current deletion policy, that could be considered a violation of WP:POINT. --Pak21 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is on my mind - that is why I looked. But, I doing it now because if I don't ask when I'm still new and thinking about it I won't ask at all --Mike 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. DCEdwards1966 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 42,000 Google hits supports notability. Inclusionist/deletionist dichotomy is an important aspect of all online encyclopedias and other Wiki-like collections of information. Without deletionists to filter out the algae of cruft, every existing article, person, or phenomenon would generate a plethora of branch articles and intractable disambiguation pages. Edison 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell, this seems to be an attempt to link to an obscure druid wiki, which is linked to twice in this very short article. Deletionism as it applies to Wikipedia is already covered by several articles on Meta, mainly this one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've heard enough. As I thought it wasn't worth putting in the effort to write it. I think we are wasting time discussing further - if I could remember how to speedy delete I'd do it! can someelse do it for me - and thanks for the input. Better to have a discussion now rather than after spending half a day writing it! --Mike 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this self-referential article (is this a self-referential vote?) NawlinWiki 15:42, 26 October 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.