Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derbism

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. Wizardman 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derbism

I removed the proposed deletion tag from this because deletion had previously been contested, but I agree with the prodder's reason for deletion: "no independent reliable sources for this alleged philosophical approach [1][2]. Current references are to unreliable blog sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as swiftly as possible. Not only is this article totally unsourced from reliable sources and of extremely dubious notability, as noted above, but it is also an apparent WP:COATRACK article containing a myriad of extraordinary claims about and criticism of two and more living people, including a presidential candidate. Full disclosure: I was the second prodder. Is a prod really considered contested when the editor who first tags it changes his/her mind? Anyway, looking at this more thoroughly I think it should be deleted sooner rather than later, and an AFD and the opinions of other editors here may actually facilitate this, so thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prod was first removed by a different editor, not the tagger,[3] so it was validly contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. I missed that.--Slp1 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited; no hits on GBooks or GNews; the only relevant Ghits are blogs (and don't cover the subject in detail anyway). I'm not even convinced this is a unified theory or framework; it seems more like a synthesis of stereotypical liberal beliefs for conservative bloggers to use as shorthand. ("Liberal" and "conservative" in the typical American sense.) 199.8.47.12 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source is a blog. Doesn't appear notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, term does not appear to be notable or in wide use. We already have an article on John Derbyshire which more than adequately covers this topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2008 (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.