Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multigarchy

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. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multigarchy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism with very few Google hits. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or merge.~~Merge. I'm the creator. The source is reliable and is by a journalist, and the content in the source is not trivial. It can be added to; deleting the whole article simply prevents that. Userfying it would discourage anyone else from editing it. As a mainspace article, it welcomes additions. I marked it before the AfD nomination as a stub and as needing more sources, which are ways of encouraging adding to it. I don't know if it's a neologism (I don't have OED2 handy). It's not in JStor, so it's not in much academic use. The subject is a form of government that, by whatever name or none, is likely to have widespread occurrence in history and in modern times. Merger may be appropriate but I didn't see where it should be merged into; please suggest a destination in which weight would not be a problem. Otherwise, it would be better to link to it from other articles and let editors add to it over time. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (Updated my vote (per my post below) and corrected (deleted) my redundant word: 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unnoticed, unsuccessful WP:NEO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither multigarchy nor multigarch is in the Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.), as accessed today, so it's a neologism. As the creator, I've therefore changed my vote to "merge", even though I still would like a suggestion for a destination. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a definition and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possibly create a soft redirect to wikt:multigarch, where the term needs verification. - tucoxn\^talk 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's accepted at Wiktionary, it'll likely be because the book is considered "well-known", but I doubt that and I don't know of two more sources. I didn't find much of use in the first four pages of a Google search with or without the trailing "y" and I found nothing in an EbscoHost search of various library databases; these were on a recent day.
- Since merging is an option in an AfD, I wonder if the latest votes to delete are opposition to merging into a Wikipedia article. Articles often include definitional information, although I suppose we could use an article's See Also section to link to a specific Wiktionary entry, provided it survives in Wiktionary. But I don't think the information is such that it should not appear anywhere in a Wikimedia Foundation project, so I disagree with not merging if it does not stay in Wiktionary.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism not in general use. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 25 April 2013 (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.