Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expert worship

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Expert worship
POV essay, and the term gets just 148 Google hits even before the Wikipedia-and-mirrors hits are discounted. After that, it gets just 69, and a substantial number of those are just coincidental use of those two words in that order, like "he is an expert worship leader", "What god or gods does this expert worship?" and, ahem, "Pay attention to this video for $FOO's expert worship of $BAR's $QUUX."
 * Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified and referenced --Doc (?) 11:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * POV essay, no encyclopedic content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: the term is not widely used (or references are missing), content quality is rather low. It may be useful article sometimes, though. Attention should be brought to Post Autistic Economics (the same creator) which feels as /truly/ original research. Pavel Vozenilek 17:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It gets 10,800 Google hits once Wikipedia mirrors are subtracted out (search terms: '"Post Autistic Economics" -wikipedia'). I don't think it's that great of an article, but I don't think it's original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe it to be a minor branch that could be perhaps merged into something like the ad hominem section on logical fallacies. I definitely would not call it a completely idiosyncratic, wild topic--Knucmo2 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, a vote to "keep" and a vote to "merge" would seem to be mutually exclusive options. I'm also puzzled by your reference to "completely idiosyncratic, wild topic" -- did someone call it that? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary step-child of appeal to authority. Rkevins82 18:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing here that isn't better covered at Appeal to Authority or Logical fallacies. --DavidConrad 23:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep it only if someone provides some seriously qualified future additions. / Peter Isotalo 00:23, 14 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.