Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redneckistan


 * 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 of the debate was redirect to Redneck. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Redneckistan
Tagged for speedy deletion as "nonsense", but it makes sense to me. Not sure of its notability as a concept. Kappa 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE offensive and not at all academic. WillC 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to maintain a neutral point of view when voting, we have articles on far more offensive terms like "nigger". Kappa 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not arguing that to state that an offensive thing is offensive is itself an offensive act. No vote at this time -- Simon Cursitor 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm says that an article being about an offensive concept is not a reason to delete that article. Kappa 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - I originally tagged this as "nonsense". After receiving notification from Kappa that it had been moved here I went back to re-read the article.  Although, written in a "authorative" tone I don't think there is any bit of truth here.  If there is I'd like to see some references or citations.  James084 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a citation. Kappa 02:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll give you that. There is a citation listed in the article; however, that hardly seems to be enough to make the article notable in any way. James084 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if the term can be shown to have widespread use. A single use of the term doesn't make a neologism encyclopedic.  It will also have to be made a little more neutral in its POV.  Logophile 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A letter to the editor doesn't carry as much weight as an editorial or a newspaper article.  I find no other support for this term outside web forums and blogs.  It hasn't assumed the prominence of Masshole. Durova 02:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jesusland. Youngamerican 03:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reasoning for my vote is the fact that they relate to the same general mene. The Jesusland article space is a better fit for all of the info about the topic, since it is A) the best-known name and B) the most developed article. Youngamerican 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as neologism with some evidance of usage from lots of Google hits. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 04:13Z 
 * 122 is "lots of Google hits"? Delete, nonsense.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge with Jesusland. Valid term, but limited usage, so we don't really need a whole article for it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a good meme but just not notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jesusland. This is a poorly written article which seems to explain the same concept as Jesusland.  A redirect will discourage recreation.  Movementarian 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very obscure, seems to be used by one person. Blnguyen 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Redneck, the article doesn't support any connection between this term and the Jesusland map. Gazpacho 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Redneck. Reyk 07:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Redneck. --Terence Ong Talk 08:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep isn't this related to Jesusland? If so, keep  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Gazpacho Compu  ter  Jo  e  10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiki is not a slang dictionary B.ellis 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. I'm convinced this is nonsense. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete por reasons listed above -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into "Parodic, fictional, and cultural -stans" section of -stan. AnonMoos 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as slang. Edgar181 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term has been used by the NY Times and other publications . -- JJay 23:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Weak Merge to Redneck.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: neologism. --King of All the Franks 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Dustimagic 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as repost. Note that there is a comment in the Discussion from 8 November, but this article was ony created yesterday.  It is on my watchlist (which means I have edited it in the past, quite possibly to tag it for AfD or cleanup), but I do not appear in the edit history.  All of which says "repost" to me.  Perhaps some friendly admin could check the deleted edit history?  If not speedy repost, then delete anyway as heavily and irredeemably POV. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, esp. in light of JzG's note above. Made up terms should not be legitimised by WP.  I would accept a redirect to Redneck, although I think it is wholly unnecessary. Eusebeus 20:39, 7 January 2006 (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.