Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principlist


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Principlist

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

I can't make head or tail of this article. I suppose that its subject, if it even exists (and some Ghits would attest that it does), pertains to philosophy, or ethics, or politics, or something. But it is so unintelligible that if anybody knows anything about the subject, he or she would be best served by a fresh, empty article. Goochelaar (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Rambling, incoherent dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly promotion of a neologism, and possibly a hoax. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete total and complete garbage. JuJube (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 Speedy delete if possible for this nonsensical article Artene50 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A1 Speedy It's not notability but rather patent nonsense. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flagged it for speedy a while back, but was rejected. Bongomatic (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, then make into a redirect to Principle. Reyk  YO!  02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think that we should support the author's neologism even to the extent of providing a redirect. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:58, 29 July 2008 (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.