Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diversism


 * 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. The consensus is that this is a neologism. Should it ever be used more commonly, other than the website of the same name, then it can be recreated  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Diversism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Article about a new word, which seems to be used in two distinct senses:


 * "A Young Cultural and Architectural Theory in the early maturing stages" linked to a body called "The British Biological Architecture Administration" which the article claims is "an Executive Branch agency of the British government." (The BBAA website does not actually make that claim, which seems to me highly improbable, though it displays the Government's lion-and-unicorn crest)
 * a new religion founded by one Joseph Andrew Nelson who "is currently investing in a small church in Virginia where he will share his beliefs and ideas".

Only sources cited are the BBAA site and "www.diversism.com". Both these websites brought me warning flags from Zonealarm: "This website is suspicious. Leave now unless you know this site is safe," possibly because they were only set up on 20 Nov 2010 and 9 Feb 2011 respectively.

Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms... for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."

A search finds links back to the BBAA, and various other people using the word in various ways, but no secondary sources, nor any indication that any specific use is solidly enough established to satisfy WP:NEO and be the basis of a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's conceivable that the term may eventually gain some traction, but at present it's the work of a single individual whose ideas haven't gained notice in the press, architectural or otherwise. The websites seem to relate to a competition, and are clearly not a branch of the UK/HM government, lion and unicorn not withstanding. As such sources are circular in nature, or nonexistent. The article doesn't provide any actual insight into the principles associated with the term, just a series of general declarations that could apply to any field. The comparison with Modernism is completely specious.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  —JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 12 February 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.