Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoism


 * 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Paleoism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pretty clear neologism. Less than 100 Google hits, a large number of which point to one essay by Lew Rockwell, where the word is used exactly twice. eaolson (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: a) There are not "less than 100 Google hits", there are 253. b) It's not a neologism. A neologism is "a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase"; seeing as the word many years old, it doesn't fit the definition. That said, I wouldn't be heart-broken if this disambiguation was deleted; but I feel that the term is used often enough that it warrants a simple disambiguation page. Weak keep, I guess. --darolew 08:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am seeing these debates on the number of Google hits. Google can search and include "similar results" or omit them.  The similar results are almost exclusively repeats of the same material on the same website, mentions on Wikipedia talk pages, transclusions, and the like.  Without the similar results, the number is around 100 hits.  It is also helpful to include quotation marks.  See here, 91 hits.  Also, this is a disambiguation page, so Keep. Drawn Some (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (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.