Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hygiecracy


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hygiecracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Non notable philosophy, neologism supported by a single blog site. has also added this to numerous articles, so a broader cleaning may be necessary. JNW (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While there may not be much academic research citing this term, much of what happens in the world of thought is not represented by academia, or the mainstream press. Hygiecracy, however, is a political theory of substantial rigor and merit that has been discussed in avant garde circles for some time, and is relevant to questions and discussions of constitutional theory and constitutional interpretation. In addition to being supported by the blog, it is also supported by an article published on counterpunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliamars999 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's not much academic research--I could find none whatsoever, and neither of the sources offered satisfy guidelines at WP:RELIABLE; but for a brief reference to Hygieia, the Counterpunch article doesn't seem to even mention it at all--then this doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY. Nobody is arguing the philosophy's merit, but there's no evidence that it merits an encyclopedia article. JNW (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the Counterpunch article refers to the basic hygiecratic argument, related to the maxim salus populi... I accept the position that it does not satisfy certain guidelines. However, guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not laws, or even rules. As such, it seems that one has flexibility, and discretion to some degree, with adhering more or less rigidly to guidelines. It seemed to me that this concept merited an encyclopedia entry. The last thing I wanted to do was to compromise the integrity of wikipedia. I am not convinced that this entry does that. But I will yield to consensus. Juliamars999
 * Delete Counterpunch all point to the same author with the same blog. Seems to violate WP:OR. Could be a new and important concept in the future, but certainly not at the moment. Wikipedia will never be at the edge of human thinking. scope_creep  (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2013  (UTC)
 * Delete as a Non-Notable Neologism. I'm a big believer in getting a sense of the notability of subjects from the size of their Google footprint, under the premise that from an eclectic iceberg of sufficient size odds are that a reliably-sourced snowcone can be made. At a mere 1430 hits for the term, I doubt there are enough reliable sources to make a piece of cocktail ice... Of course there is a "Hygiecracy" blog and a "Hygiecracy" facebook page, tipping off the likelihood of promotional intent behind a WP presentation of this purported subject. The term is not notable now (a GNG failure), and I doubt that it ever will be. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I am curious as to whether anyone else sees the irony in enforcing guidelines when - by the very definition of "guideline" in wikipedia's very own page - see Guideline - "guidelines are not binding and are not enforced." They are not laws, they are guidelines. This is not offensive material. Has Wikipedia become the Catholic Church? Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That a subject is inoffensive is a quality unrelated to its notability, and notability is a non-negotiable guideline. Parenthetically, when a new account edits at Wikipedia with the apparent intent of writing about or promoting a single subject, then responds to AfD feedback by questioning the website's integrity, the criticism is not likely to be taken to heart. Now I have to go and don my vestments. JNW (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment I never questioned the website's integrity. I wrote that compromising - well, anyone who is interested can re-read what I wrote. It is not tremendously complicated and does not require interpretation. Just look up a few lines. Secondly, my account has been around for months; since when did ad hominems become acceptable as logic? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the contradiction involving guidelines remains. A non-negotiable guideline is still a guideline. Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, counter-counter comment If not questioning its integrity, perhaps I've misinterpreted the intent in asking if Wikipedia has become the Catholic Church. And the edit history indicates that the first contribution was made April 12. As for perceived contradictions in guidelines, if one's interest is truly geared toward changing the process by which subjects are deemed noteworthy, then this is most probably not the best venue. Nor will it carry the day in an AfD. JNW (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The quip regarding the church was intended to draw attention to dogmatism. I apologize if it caused offense. Drawing attention to dogmatism, however, is relevant when the issue is Guidelines (which according to Wikipedia's own entry on the matter "are not binding and not enforced"). I am sincerely interested in learning how this contradiction is reconcilable. Are Wikipedia's Guidelines not actually guidelines (even according to Wikipedia's own entry)? Are they called Guidelines, but are actually Rules? Please clarify. This actually seems to be a serious interpretive problem. Because, if they are guidelines then they are not supposed to be enforced and ought to be non-binding. I recognize that we do not see eye to eye on this, but I am honestly pursuing this in good faith Juliamars999 (talk)Juliamars999 —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Juliamars999, you have correctly pointed out that Wikipedia is governed by "guidelines", including a notability "guideline" (codified at WP:Note), and that occasional exceptions to guidelines may apply. However, given that a guideline on Wikipedia is treated as a default rule, and any deviation from it is an "exception", the burden is on the proponent of the exception to prove that it is warranted. Thus far, I have seen you proffer no evidence supporting your view that Hygiecracy should be considered an exception to Wikipedia's notability guideline, other than by mentioning that the topic is not offensive. Do you have any other support for your view? Furthermore, the term "hygiecracy" facially appears to be a neologism, which are generally prohibited by WP:NEO. Do you have any evidence that the term is in fact not a neologism, or if it is a neologism, why an exception should be made in this instance? If not, note from WP:NEO that "Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's [in that Wiktionary] may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NEO; no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Juliamars999, please read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, and also note that several Wikipedia policies directly apply here. Sideways713 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism / original research. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - @JuliaMars. There actually are inclusion standards at WP, although judging by some of the dreck you will see it is difficult to grasp. Good luck with the blog and all, but the term itself would not seem to meet muster. I tell newcomers who are sucked into the Articles For Deletion maelstrom that AfD is sort of like traffic court: it doesn't matter if other people are speeding, once one is in the system it is a matter of defending one's innocence of the charges — and that means mustering multiple published reliable sources substantially covering the topic in question. Arguing that the laws are stupid and that one should be given a break just because doesn't work. Do try editing a few Wikipedia articles with an open mind, you might come to enjoy it. Sorry that you are probably on the wrong side of the dividing line here. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; neologism, non-notable, unreliable sources, no clear reason offered to support an exception to any Wikipedia guideline or policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (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.