Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plantarianism[edit]
- Plantarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable neologism. No relevant hits in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. General web search shows only self published sources using the term. Also, it's unclear what makes this different from Semi-vegetarianism. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of secondary sources. Notice also that the article is entirely positive. If nobody has ever said anything bad about something that is a sign it is not notable. (I've never checked out our article on Vegetarianism but I assume it has a section on "criticism of vegetarianism.")Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found this source which could count as significant coverage, if reliable. King Jakob C2 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The source King jacob found is the web page of the nutritionist who apparently invented the term, and says so. Classic example of NOT NEOLOGISM. DGG ( talk )
- Delete as apparently my "significant coverage" is not so. The rest of the Google search is a huge mess of blogs, facebook pages, and SPS "sources". King Jakob C2 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's a variation on semi-vegitarianism that hasn't really gained traction. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 10 June 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.