Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak clutter


 * 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. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 09:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Peak clutter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Speedy declined. Have a look. Seemed like incomprehensible no context to me.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - either a hoax or a poor attempt at subversive wiki humor. Kudos to the article creator for supplying an example of peak clutter with an article titled "Peak clutter". But there are better places for this type of social commentary. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, something made up. Polarpanda (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Protoneologism. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ha ha ha ha ha he he. Delete --Brunnian (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Develop Anyone who has worked collaboratively with a group of people using wiki pages to document ideas and prepare draft content to be transformed into solid, final content has likely encountered peak clutter. Wiki pages get bogged down with such a significant amount of information that their utility is compromised by the sheer weight of everything. This tends to lead to some pruning and re-tasking of wiki pages to improve clarity. Peak clutter is far from nonsense. In fact, the process Wikipedia itself exists to combat peak clutter. Ageless (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Develop This idea seems sound to me, could benefit from more users adding to the article, what's the rush to delete? --Albinopigeon (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — Albinopigeon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete As the sole listed source shows, this is a neologism. Based on the reliability of that source and the lack of other sources, that shows it is a non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 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.