Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gifting way

Gifting way
Gibberish, with scant possibility of an actual article being possible. Uncle G 01:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * Delete Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 02:11, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable concept/term and deserves to have an article. But until someone writes something appropriate, this should be made a redirect to "Gift economy". Paul August &#9742; 03:44, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the correctness of the redirect. Gift economy describes a type of economy, and various real-world examples of it.  In contrast, Gifting way is original research that propounds a "natural law of economics" (If I were to suppose a "natural law of economics that has run the affairs of this world since its creation", I'd suggest that it was the first law of thermodynamics and point to the great big nuclear fusion reactor up there in the sky continuously pumping energy into the system.) and attempts to piggyback off a mainstream idea.  There's no supporting evidence given for this "natural law", or even for a widespread agreement that this is what the phrase "gifting way" means in the first place; and the article reads more like a New Age manifesto than an encylopaedia entry. Uncle G 13:47, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * Yes the article as written makes little sense, but the term is, I think, a real and notable one. It has to do with Native American religion and cultural practices involved with hunting. Paul August  &#9742; 23:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The term can't be "real" if it only gets 20 Google hits. The term, under this name, doesn't exist: nobody uses it. It's a neologism.  If the concept is real, there must be some real actually-in-use term for it.  But strip away the New Age POV and you'd probably just be left with gift economy. -- Curps 14:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The term is real, but people don't agree on what it actually means. As I said, there's no evidence, either supplied or locatable, for "gifting way" having a single meaning, let alone the meaning that is in this article, which seems to have been plucked out of thin air. As I said, there's scant possibility of an actual article being possible. Uncle G 07:49, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gift economy - I don't see much that is worth merging. Cdc 05:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yah, I'm thinking Uncle G above is right; a delete would be fine too. Cdc 23:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect, nothing worth merging. Gift economy covers it, and "gifting way" just seems to be a neologism that this person invented. All of 20 Google hits. -- Curps 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this term was invented by this author, as I said above, I think it is part of Native Americal religion and cultural practices involved with hunting, and as such it is not particularly surprising that there are so few google hits. Paul August &#9742; 23:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Needs elaboration on its principles founded more in New Age spirituality than any "law", which are different from gift economy. Either a weak keep pending rewrite or redirect to New Age. Stombs 13:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, gibberish duplicate of existing content. Wyss 21:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete new age claptrap. If someone has something meaningful to say about Native American aspects that somehow doesn't fit in with "gift economy", I'd be open to that, but the current article is not it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 02:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, This is an Old Way, Native, Aboriginal, concept that is not quite the same as gift economy. As the Old Ways are "relational" thinking as opposed to "reductionist" thinking I am obviously having a hard time getting the point across.  I have edited it to try again.  This is a notable term and my failure at communicating it will hopefully not be grounds for its removal.  Ted 14:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * After your changes it is now even more of a POV essay, and even less of an encyclopedia article than it was before. See What Wikipedia is not.  And with only 20 Google hits, even the term itself is something you just invented. -- Curps 14:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it quite interesting that if something does not exist on Google, then it does not exist. I would find that rather limiting of my worldview.  For example you will not find the word "uuchunn" on Google.  Does that mean it does not exist or is a neologism?  For that matter isn't "wikipedia" a neologism?  As for something being a point of view, what isn't?  You are only the sum of your experiences, thoughts, and feelings, which are all unique to you.  Any viewpoint you share with others is your point of view for that is all any of us have.  I had wanted to "gift" some of my wisdom and knowledge back to the wikipedia community.  At this point it is taking more energy than I am willing to put into it.  I tried to explain this concept in terms that I thought you might understand.  Apparently this has made it worse in your view?  I had thought of wikipedia as a depository for concepts of a diverse cultural background and yet it seems that a concept much older than most of the concepts in this database is being labeled and censored by those unable to see outside of their own cultural box. As a user of wikipedia I find this dissapointing but enlightening as to the article process here.  I am unsure if the viewpoints expressed here represent a consensus of the wikipedia community, I suppose time will tell.  I wish you well on your project.  Ted 17:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There are lots of adherents to "New Age" spiritual philosophies, lots of people interested in native or aboriginal cultural values, and they are just as likely to create webpages as anyone else. It is clear that approximately none of those people use the term "gifting way".  If something does not exist on Google, then it may exist... but it doesn't matter (ie, it is not encyclopedic).  Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and while there is a place for opinionated essays or original research or advocacy, that place is not Wikipedia.  Such types of material are excluded regardless of how well written they may be or the personal qualities of their author. Once again, see What Wikipedia is not and No original research. -- Curps 18:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not factual, borders on patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice to see the Wiki still works. hfool/Roast me 03:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a pity; it's like there's a good sociological point somewhere waiting to be made, buried under the rest of it. Delete. Lacrimosus 09:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * please see [discussion] Ted 15:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly POV essay--which, I suppose, would hardly mandate deletion if this were an article on a properly encyclopedic subject. As it is, this is an original-research-y interpretation of various facts and beliefs that I suspect are covered elsewhere with better detail and in better context. This is mostly an attempt to promote an idea, which (regardless of that idea's virtue) is a no-go. My limited, reductive paradigm sez delete. Iralith 20:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)