Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kochtopus


 * 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. Tone 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kochtopus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete Word made up by some commenters and bloggers. Maybe technically not a wp:Neologism because the first instance of it can be found in 1980, still, I doubt it appears in any dictionary or is in wide use. Moreover, the sources for this word are all blogs, or otherwise not wp:rs and the article strikes me as a delivery system for opinions rather than verifiable fact. Additionally, the term is clearly made to disparage the subject Charles G. Koch, which strikes me as a wp:BLP violation. Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It appears to be a weird neologism. It doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. --Pstanton (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (cringes at the misuse of "encyclopedic") Keep. Every word is made up by somebody. Also, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia whose titles you wouldn't show up in a dictionary, e.g. Metallica, and there are a lot of words that appear in dictionaries that aren't included in Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mother Jones and The Libertarian Forum are not such bad sources, and there are a few others I just found on Google Scholar that I may add in a moment. Also, an octopus is not necessarily associated with anything negative (in contrast to, say, a weasel or a snake). Lastly, Koch is a public figure and in any event, truth is a defense to libel. Tisane (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Metallica is a proper name willingly adopted by its members, and confirmed by its appearance in reliable sources. 'Kochtopus', in contrast, is a pejorative made up by either a single commentator or, at most, small handful of detractors and appearing in a few blogs and editorials. The difference is huge.  Your claim that an octopus is not necessarily negative is ridiculous, are we to suppose that name was chose due to the group's mutual love of Cephalopods? Come now, lets just quote one of your sources "but the stage was set for the birth of what Libertarians call, not altogether fondly, the "Kochtopus"" and "The tentacles of the Kochtopus..." and "The "Kochtopus" is a derogatory name coined by the late Samuel Edward Konkin". Your comment about truth being a defense against libel doesnt make sense, we are not a court of law, Wikipedia is governed by its own set of rules and I dont think this is a libel issue anyway. Bonewah (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a derogatory nickname for a living person - basically an attack page. The term might rate a mention in the article about Koch, along with a few citations such as those listed here, but no way should it have its own article. For starters, the definition given - "The Kochtopus is a group of minarchist organizations founded by Charles G. Koch" - has no basis in fact, since I think we can rest assured that Koch doesn't refer to them that way. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (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.