Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellstoning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was Redirect to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath. Content has already been transwikied: wiktionary:Wellstoning Deathphoenix 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wellstoning
Removed from Wikipedia:proposed deletion, where it was called a neologism, listend here in order to allow for possible discussion, no vote. youngamerican (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Send to Wikitionary. Doesn't belong here. Bobby1011 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a neologism with little in the way of verifiable sources. What makes us think that Wiktionary would want it? Capitalistroadster 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unattributed protologism; no Google print hits. Doesn't appear to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Don't deprod things unless you want them kept. —Cryptic (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Kindly point out to me where it says in the guidelines in Wikipedia:proposed deletion where it says to not de-prod items unless I think it should be kept. I merely want a "broader discussion on the matter of an article's deletion," so I listed the article on AfD. youngamerican (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Follow up I posted a note at the prod talk page[1] calling for possible inclusion of a note in the policy that reflects Cryptic's sentiment. youngamerican (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Nope, what he did was right. PROD specifically implies no controversy. If someone happens by and believes it is, in fact, controversial, it is entirely appropriate to remove the tag and send it to AfD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Kindly point out to me where it says in the guidelines in Wikipedia:proposed deletion where it says to not de-prod items unless I think it should be kept. I merely want a "broader discussion on the matter of an article's deletion," so I listed the article on AfD. youngamerican (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Send to Wiktionary, perhaps add some material to make it less POV.Bjones 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Terence Ong 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath, where the controversy that spawned this neologism is described in detail. android79 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Android79. youngamerican (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Google provides 403 hits, but most are unique and appear on "real" sites (largely political blogs). The word appears to be catching on, and a description of the phenomenon and the genesis of the word takes this beyond a dicdef. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. Ifnord 01:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
