Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy factualist

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 delete. I'm also protecting the page against re-creation. Angr/talk 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy factualist[edit]

Delete neologism. 26 unique google hits outside of Wikipedia. Was {{prod}}ded, deleted, recreated by the original author, {{prod}}ded again, and the tag then removed by the original author. Postdlf 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn neologism. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant neologism. Bobby1011 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and oxymoron. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-noteable neologism, wouldn't belong on Wikipedia anyway - it's at best a dictdef. Michael Ralston 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn, neologism, dictdef. --Aaron 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unverified neologism. Superm401 - Talk 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism. Another part of the User:Striver's effort to spread his POV throughout wikipedia. I think we can all agree that the user has exhausted the community's patience--Jersey Devil 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism with incoherent POV argument given as justification. (aeropagitica) 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. dbtfz ^talk 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism, though it has been used in The Guardian and the Austin Chronicle, but even if wider usage were established, a redirect to Conspiracy theory would be the most it could earn. Schizombie 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.