Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reestablishmentariansim

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) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reestablishmentariansim[edit]

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

Written like a dictionary definetion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is just a dictionary definition. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, it's just a dictionary definition, of a seldom used word. I suspect that the word itself was made up, years ago, as a response to disestablishmentarianism, which in itself is used only as a bit of trivia as, supposedly at one time, the longest word in the English language, but even that's a redirect. Mandsford 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has noticed that this is not reestablishmentarianism, then? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term has been used in a way that demonstrates potential to be more than just a dictionary definition.[1] It has also been used in a religious context.[2] So there is genuine usage of the term out there to describe a discrete concept (the re-establishment of previous generation of elites). But I'm not sure whether a separate article is justifiable - perhaps we can do some more searching? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, there is the "not a dictionary" issue. Second, there is no evidence that I can find of any significant amount of use of "Reestablishmentarianism" (and none at all of "Reestablishmentariansim", which is the title of the article, but presumably that was a typo). On those few occasions when the word is used it is frequently in contexts which indicate that the person using it does not consider it a real word: for example 'what might be dubbed “re-establishmentarianism” ' , and even 'and speaking of $10 words, I'm waiting for reestablishmentarianism, and concomitantly antireestablishmentarianism, to begin cropping up' . The first of those is one of the examples linked above by Mkativerata. The other example linked by Mkativerata says 'an implicit "re-establishmentarian" (our term) strategy.' So again we have the hedging with "our term", acknowledging that it is not a recognised word, and also the fact that the word used is actually "re-establishmentarian", rather than "reestablishmentarianism". From what I can see, this is a sporadically used neologism, rarely if ever felt even by those who use it to be a "real word", and when it is used it is used only in passing. I have not managed to find even one case of substantial coverage of the concept. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY (not to mention misspelled). User has been adding articles with little or no basis given for being on the encyclopedia. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (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.