Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festivalism

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Festivalism[edit]

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

This article was prodded with a rationale of "huh". While I understand why Ron Ritzman chose to decline the prod, I hardly see why this is a notable concept—it seems to just be a summary of a single graduate student's world view. NW (Talk) 03:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a WP:Neologism or WP:OR as I can find nothing mentioning this term in detail that wasn't written by, or connected to, David Boje. Ravendrop (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose a prod rationale of "Huh?" might be taken as facetious, though I personally think it was sufficient unto the article that exists. However, as noted, this seems to be one editor's term for a worldview that is not established to be notable or even shared by anyone other than the article creator. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravendrop. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seeing that I just punched this delete, I feel a little silly. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't feel silly, Ron Ritzman. Though this may be a noble concept, it is also, unfortunately, a neologism and original reasearch which lacks reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic in depth. The references offered are controlled by the person who coined the term. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above and per WP:MADEUP. From this experience I have learned that I don't have the same kind of "cruftdar" as many other editors do. To me this just looked like another article on another nutball philosophy. However, when I pointed this out on IRC, 3 other admins instantly knew that the article needed to go. Therefore, I guess "huh?" is as good a rationale as any to those for which such things are instinctual. At least NW has demonstrated that a descriptive deletion rationale is possible, even for such an obvious case as this.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (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.