Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Congressism

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. I am discounting the keep votes, because they are essentially wrong under the NEO policy. There is no need to cover the term itself. The Congress articles already cover criticisms. Editors can mention the existence of this term there, if it is indeed legit. But there's no need for a separate article about the term. -- Y not? 01:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Congressism[edit]

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

WP:NEO and not even a popular one with but 16,200 hits on Google. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism and dicdef.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about it you would do better to title it: Opposition to the Indian National Congress or Criticism of the Indian National Congress. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I thought it was about criticism of the Congress of the United States. You could find lots of material on that. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep The widely used word in Indian politics. There are many sources in scholar and others. It is in news in India almost every day see for example [1] Shyamsunder (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Per user:shyamsunder. Just because the term is not big in the US, does not mean it will not be big elsewhere. Could do with expanding though.Martin451 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NEO, usage of the term does not count. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO - "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." SL93 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not a neologism, but the meaning of the term has no inherent meaning appart from someone being opposed to Congress, delete per dicdef. --Soman (talk) 03:43, 3 July 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.