Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernatural Rejectionist


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Rejectionist

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

This is a non-notable neologism. The given references (number of google hits on an unidentical term) are unpersuasive. Can't find news/book sources that use the term. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A non-notable neologism, hoax or something made up in one day. There are no Ghits for "Supernatural Rejectionist". &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NEO and/or WP:OR. Hqb (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above - judging by page creator's username, this is probably an attempt at self-publicity pablo hablo. 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - "The term was coined by Stephen Herron Buck on 2009-02-20" - a new term invented today is bound to fail WP:NEO. The author of that guideline saw this one coming: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Just so. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and speedy close. This strikes me as a snowball or  making a point. The author just seems to be testing the "made up one day" criterion for deletion. And one very specific, named day at that!  J L G 4 1 0 4  02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NEO and obviously made up one day!. --     04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and tagged as such. Rational: The article's author has a very similar username to the person that "invented" it, one of the auto-reverted references was a facebook page, and the two other links appear to be generic searches rather than attempts to prove notability.  It's also a dictionary definition, and wouldn't hold a candle to existing terms such as agnostic or nontheist. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All true, but expect an admin to deny the CSD request since it doesn't fit within the narrow criteria. Savy users can game the CSD criteria and this is a good example of how to do so. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's what happened. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This indeed was a test. Thank you for proving my opinion that wiki is upstanding. I have lots of friends on Facebook that I debate with and they often negate wiki links that I provide as untrustworthy. So I have been asking them to participate in proving the notion one way or another. Thanks again. Stephen Herron Buck


 * 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.