Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Neoism

Add links
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. — Aitias // discussion 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Neoism[edit]

Political Neoism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As its name implies it is new. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; see WP:BURDEN. I googled the references cited in the article (except the National Catholic Reporter, which isn't specified with even remotely sufficient specificity to be verified), and the only hits each of them get in any of several configurations is this article. The term does appear in a limited number of ghits, but a cursory glance does not suggest that the term is used in the context it is here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; As a valuable analysis of a new idea and an emergent new culture. By the way, ZappyGun, a quick search on Political Neoism brings up the website on Political Neoism as the first result or in some cases third result. The only relevant page is NOT this article itself, there is an entire website on it at www.neoistsynthesis.org . A more careful search would reveal numerous blogs and media as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakingsultan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Shakingsultan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • That source is irrelevant - an organization's self-published website can't bootstrap its notability. Notability is founded on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:ORG; WP:GNG; WP:NEO; etc.). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is founded on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - another contradiction. How can you want coverage of the subject by people who are independent of the subject? You want someone to write an article that doesn't know anything about it? Or does that mean you have to have a PHD or something to contribute around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Illipticdynamite, I'm not sure that your comment is coherent unless you think that "independent of" means something akin to "ignorant of." Do you really mean to advance the theory that only one who is dependent on or a member of a given subject can "know anything about it"? Is, for example, Alan Bullock's book about Hitler and Stalin useless since an author who was neither a nazi nor a communist, nor a member of either of their families or political circles wouldn't know anything about it? That's the upshot of the argument you're making here. It's also completely contrary to Wikipedia policy; if your theory is right, then WP:COI, for example, has it precisely backwards: people should be encouraged to edit articles about themselves, because after all, who is less independent of the subject, and who knows more about the subject, than the subject themselves? We are to assume good faith, but a string of incoherent reasoning from a user who appears to have registered for the sole purpose of disputing this prod really stretches the point.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research about a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Has anyone here read the article? The article is about an ideology not an organization. The website cited before neoistsynthesis.org is an example of an organization that practices the ideology. The source might be irrelevant, but after doing some checking up I see that the article was judged on the "thinness of its external links." Neoistsynthesis.org is an external link. So the logic of the deleters here is: external links are irrelevant but there needs to be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Illipticdynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don't understand a single word said. MuZemike 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block obvious meatpuppets. JuJube (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable nonsense. And so something about the puppetry. Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this philosophy has had any coverage in reliable sources. If this idea goes away and gets revived in a few years will it be neoneoism? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_Neoism&oldid=1142238630"