Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracious Professionalism

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 – not only is it not in general use, the text is a copyvio of a page at usfirst.org. - KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious Professionalism[edit]

Non-notable phrase/neologism coined by one professor and probably not in general usage outside the FIRST Robotics community. No independent references to suggest otherwise. More than half of the article is a quote. Author just removes all tags without explanation. FIRST Robotics itself is notable and already has its own article but this phrase does not deserve a separate article. It could be merged into FIRST Robotics. DanielRigal (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Non-notable neoglism. Redfarmer (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more examples of this term with this exact meaning can be gleaned (and even then, it would be an entry in the wikidictionary, not the wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this isn't WP:NEO, delete and start over. Article is hard to read. --Kannie | talk 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written superfluous neologism. -- Pepve (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable neologism and poorly written. Oyster guitarist 05:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect to FIRST. It's a major part of FIRST philosophy, but I don't think there's enough that can be said and verified about it to give it a separate article. --Goobergunch|? 11:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism, very poorly written. Jonathan § 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the professor's article. NN enough to stand on its own. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. - Headwes (talk) 04:21, 16 January 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.