Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Values


 * 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.  Singu larity  05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Professor Values

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

The phrase is an obvious neologism. Direct copy from a Conservapedia page. Article was prodded with six prod2's agreeing. Prod removed by anon editor Dipics (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy/snow delete Blatantly POV original research; unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Jfire (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as blatantly POV and a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for original research. Are we to include an article now on Doctor Values or Lawyer Values or Editor Values? Those are professions too, and I'm sure original research could be done using reliable sources to support an article on them, but Wikipedia does not publish original research. --Darkprincealain (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete. Plagiarised hate-filled rubbish from what is in effect a blog. A clear candidate for invoking WP:SNOW. Get rid of it! Snalwibma (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is evidence for every claim. Its well researched with lots of references. Open your minds. 86.45.208.101 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence is that this is a neologism. Even Conservapedia itself admits it .  While this might be acceptable to something like Conservapedia, it shouldn't be and isn't for an encyclopedia. Dipics (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this is not well referenced. There are only two references. The first, an article on homeschooling which at no time mentions tertiary education or professor values. The second, also the "third", is web article repeating the results of an online survey. The survey may be the only credible reference depending on how well it was taken, and it dicussed political views of professors not "values". This, I feel, further indicates this is original research or even opinon and not of encyclopedic merit.Aiden Fisher (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — title is a neologism, content is POV. ... disco spinster   talk  20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only reason, seemingly, it even remains on Conservapedia is because it seems to be one of a group of articles that are the pet projects of the owner of the site and/or sysops. Check the Conservapedia Talk Page.  Most of the time, any time anyone actually asks for evidence, they get threatened, ignored, or more or less get told to find the evidence themselves. Zmidponk (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete reference's don't support notability as none even use the term, much less meet the requirement of being about it. Original research and spurious claims, some of which are borderline BLP violations. Fails WP:OR, WP:NEO. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The article violates, WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and probably a half dozen other policies you could find. Aiden Fisher (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, that the best neologism they could come up with? AnteaterZot (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Open your minds. 86.40.108.127 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to elaborate and refute some of the above accusations? Guycalledryan (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, can't believe we're still sitting around discussing this. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete,Why is this being discussed? TheresaWilson (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, Its a load of rubbish and the only defender is a troll Whiskery (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. However, the second paragraph, which actually has some legitimate statistics, could perhaps get some mention in another article covering academia in the US. This article, of course, is absolute tripe. -R. fiend (talk) 13:37, 29 March 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.