Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis of medieval

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 no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis of medieval

POV, no reliable sources. Funny, but WP:NOT a political jokebook. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not encyclopedic. Deli nk 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. I'll also add that the article does not contain a WP:NPOV. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, this article is 3.5 years old. It doesn't hold a WP:NPOV, and is uncited. --Porqin 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there are this New York Times article and this International Herald Tribune article. Uncle G 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And this New Scientist article and this BBC News article. Uncle G 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I tucked those in at the bottom of the article for the moment - so I think it passes WP:V anyhow.
• Keep I'm not sure what all the attacks are about - article passes WP:V at least in part (any parts failing can be excised, but the article as a whole does not so WP:V is not a valid criterion for deletion), article passes or is very close to WP:NPOV - but the article is not hopelessly pov or even strongly pov - point of view is not a criterion for exclusion. The neologism is a little tougher to address, but I'm pretty sure this can get past there too. The content seems perfectly encyclopaedic. The article definitely needs some copy-editing, but that's hardly a cause for deletion. WilyD 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep, now sources cited. I dont think it is a "Neologism". --Cat out 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete — it seems likea a neologism (or at least a protologism) to me, as we have 4 references for three different definitions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are now some sources. A blog, two columns by Nicholas Kristof and a single comment by Alex Kirby saying that "one unkind individual" had used the phrase. Taking the three reliable sources togaether, it would appear on the surface that this is a term coined by Kristof and not widely used by anyone else (144 unique Googles). I'd say merge to axis of evil or axis of weasels. What do others think? Just zis Guy you know? 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. heqs 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Rereading the article, along with the addition of the new sources, it appears three, not two of the sources are written by Nicholas Kristof, as the blog is a copy of a news report by him which contains an identical paragraph to his other newsarticle. That being said, the term also gathers rather few google hits, compared to the millions that the term "axis of evil" gathers. It would be most suitable to merge this "Other Use" of the term "Axis of Evil", to the Axis of Evil Other Uses section. --Porqin 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Uncle G has asked me to revist my initial delete vote. I still haven seen any rewriting of the article that would change my vote of Delete for Neologism, though a brief one sentence mentioning it in Axis of evil would be appropriate. The same holds true for a similar neologism, Axis of weasels. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Axis of Evil Not notable enough a phrase on its own, but it would make sense to mention in Axis of Evil --Topkai22 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or weak merge to AoE. Do not keep. It's a pun and a neologism. A neologism is by definition something that someone has written in some publication or antoher. There was an article posted on WP:PNT a month or two back. The article was translated from Russian to English. The word itself was not of russian origin, but it was written about several times about several different topics in several different scholarly journals dating back to the 1950 or so. It was still not notable enough to keep. Neither is this. --Kunzite 05:09, 2 August 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.