Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depletist (second nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depletist

Depletist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a neologism whose speedy deletion was contested. It has been created, listed for deletion, and deleted once before; I do not know if the new version is any more robust. I believe this fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Eron 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no sources for it in wide spread usage, and a single use at the U.N. which isn't even sourced is just not good enough -- Whpq 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP- This entry should not be deleted because the word is spreading really fast and even has links to many sites that can be searched on google. Further context for this page and word will be updated ASAP.

It is also associated with Ontario College of Art and Design, a recognized post-secondary university in Toronto, Ontario. Please allow time for the posting of further context.

The spread of this word is believed by many professors to be connected to the solution of a humanitarian issue. This is a small thing that can create incredible change in the attitudes of our world.

Also, the word has been translated in a few languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and others.

Writer and professor Robert K. Logan is a contributor to this project.

His sources and input will be posted, with the translations into different languages.

Robert K. Logan (born August 31, 1939), originally trained as a physicist, is a media ecologist. He received a BS and PhD from MIT in 1961 and 1965. After two post-doctoral appointments at University of Illinois (1965-7) and University of Toronto (1967-8) he became a physics professor in 1968 at the U of Toronto until his retirement in 2005.

Aisha285 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete To quote from the article: "The word was created in October, 2006, by a group of Think Tank students". In other words, it's a neologism thought up in school one day. (OK, University, but so what?) Emeraude 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There should be a Wikipedia article only after the "word" spreads. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism dict def, made up in (university) one day, only a couple of ghits [1] and it already has an entry on Wikitionary [2]. Even if this word does enter truly widespread use, we are an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - not in dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Online, and should be deleted from Wiktionary as a freshly-coined neologism that is being spread by students less than two months after its creation. B.Wind 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Update the Wikidictionary "depletist" entry is now no more. It was deleted as a protologism. B.Wind 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is more than just a definition of any word. It is a mind state that people should connect with. It is very much a current event that Wikipedia should be a part of. Spreading this knowledge is very important to shaping our world and only has positive outcomes. It's not just a definition, Many things have happened as a result of the creation of this word and this will all be posted. Aisha Sheikh 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the above Keep vote was posted by user:Aisha285, who has voted to keep once already.

• Comment I did not know that this was a poll. I apologize. I was only trying to make a comment.

comment - I think its admirable that a group is pushing this forward. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as admitted neologism. bikeable (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep If it is in general use it is in general use and notable. We do not judge the concept or he word. DGG 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you arguing that the word is in general use and notable, or that if it were, we should keep it? If the former - I don't see it. If the latter...well, yeah, of course. Or am I missing your point? --TheOtherBob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete still no sources to prove it is in widespread use. And spare us the "hug a tree" rhetoric please. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep There is documentation (now linked) showing it's use beyond the class. It has been used on blogs across Canada and the United States [http:del.icio.us/tags/depletist]. Although the class had a a goal to alter peoples attitudes towards the environment, the word itself is simply filling a gap in the language. As various people and institutions are forming policies around their environmental practices, it is a useful word to describe actions, and to form policy around (it would be difficult to form laws around racism or sexism if those words did not exist).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisbraden (talk • contribs). — Chrisbraden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Neologism, no reliable sources to establish widespread use. Fan-1967 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP It is not about being "hugging a tree" it is about getting people to care about the environment even if just a little, it is about sustainability, it is about stop messing with our planet because it's already in a deep mess that MAYBE we can do something about. It's a wake up call that being a depletist is NOT okay. Just as we have neologistic words such as "bling"--a slang, they've proven themselves to stick around. Even "racism" and "sexist" are nelogistic words as they were only created in the 20th century. Like Aisha285 and Chrisbraden have noted above, this word is a state of mind, it describes actions. It's an education for others. It's history in the making. For your proof that this word is spreading rapidly, you just have to google to see. What started as 0 hits has no become 498 hits in a matter of a few months. Please, it's absolutely essential that this word is kept. Please consider keeping it. Drea84 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Drea84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:NOT#SOAP. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism, admitted to be as such in the article. Usage on activist blogs does not confer the societal acceptance required by WP:NEO. The "racist"/"sexist" argument also doesn't fly with me, because those words don't have opposites, and any word created to fill that gap in our language would be a neologism as well. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Shouldn't then by all the Neologism complaints, articles such as Truthiness, invented by Steven Colbert Earlier on this year be deleted as well? When exactly do you define a word has spread? Shall it be weeks? Months? Years? By subjective standpoints, there is no ‘after’ to any sort of spreading. The article does not push for any particular viewpoint, thus the arguments that it is a trying to turn wikipedia into a soapbox doesn't apply, it is simply a documentation of a word and it's emergement usage. The fact that it has been quoted on activist blogs is not sufficient evidence to determine it's neutrality. Darthophage 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Darthophage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - determination is by more objective stadnards of WP:RS, and WP:V. At this point, the article doesn't meet these. -- Whpq 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And as long as you mention WP:RS and WP:V, I would note that truthiness has reliable sources and verifiability in spades (namely, more than 30 references from major news organizations). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that "truthiness" was already in the Oxford English Dictionary long before Colbert thought of the word.B.Wind 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all of the above. It may be good for this word to spread, but Wikipedia is not the place to spread anything. WP documents what has already spread, it does not do the spreading. --TheOtherBob 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Now, now, everybody. Lets look at the facts. This word is becoming the object of a healthy debate, and the Deletists do have a point, but to understand the positive ramifications of this word being recognized by a notable online encyclopedia that we all use will speak volumes when this word becomes common usage. All this KEEP and DELETE is interesting, but the raw facts are that this word seems to be being used by people, it seems it is spreading fast, it was created in part by a notable author and university professor. Really, so what if a bunch of university students contributed in the creation of a word? This word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. What is really being said by deleting this entry is that Borat holds more weight than a legitimate word that is a step in the right direction to creating a sustainable future. Delete if you must, but I would then question the motives of those who delete these entries. Pea73 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Pea73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Perhaps this word should carry the same weight as the word Racist. However, the word doesn't carry the same weight as racist, and Wikipedia deals in "is," not in "should be." Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia reports on what is in the world, not on what it would consider important to a world if it were making one. We're not making a world. We're making an encyclopedia about the world. To the extent that you question the motives of those who are building the encyclopedia, I'd encourage you to assume good faith.--TheOtherBob 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You will note that, on wikipedia, the word "Racist" actually redirects to the entry on "Racism", a much broader concept. As to Borat, as long as more people have heard of him than have heard of "depletist", he will - in terms of notability, which is a primary grounds for determining what does and does not belong on wikipedia - carry more weight. Don't blame the encyclopedia; blame Western culture. - Eron 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Borat - please see WP:POKEMON for the flaw with that argument. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per all of the above. From doing a Google search there are some 495 returns, say 40 of those are unique? That seems to be enough spread of a word, especially since the geography of the hits suggests some international travel. Knowing what other "rumors" make it as content on some WP entries, I don't see why this word is causing such a concern?--Jchetner 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)— Jchetner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP What's the deal, if the word is being used, as well as the idea behind it is sound enough to continue being used i don't see why it shouldn't be on here. @ least is not a Colbert word, or that elephant deal from about a year ago. there's obvious effort being put into it, as well as there's obvious spread and momentum. Wikipedia give it a rest and let them have it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — 74.108.77.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP Encyclopedia: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.This is an article on factual happenings and is thus valid for entry. It describes an idea as valid as any other. 70.51.144.100 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENC. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to apologize for the existence of WP:ENC, some wikipedians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their particular definition of "encylopedia" is mentally subnormal. Kappa 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Expunge. Declared mission of User:Aisha285, who created the article to sprerad the use of the word, which never existed before. 40 unique Ghits, all of which are blog entries of some sort, involving AFAICT mainly OCAD students discussing the word. Fails WP:RS miserably. Ohconfucius 09:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, and given that this has apparently already been deleted once, perhaps we should seriously consider salting as well. --TheOtherBob 16:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - considering the commentary and seeming sockpuppetry on the page, I propose that if the page is deleted, it be salted as well. --Dennisthe2 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect per Ohconfucius and TheOther, and per here. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Salt. Spank author - when your mission is to spread a neologism, you are violating WP:POINT. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And when you ask that a new editor be spanked, you are violating WP:BITE. Eron 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - non-notable neologism, blogs are not reliable sources. Also, please see WP:NFT. Block all the socks/meatpuppets as well. Moreschi 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism. —Hanuman Das 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A barely month old neologism? Come back when this word grows up. Resolute 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please Keep. Do the world some good. Things are bad and there is enough information to make this word valid. And btw- there is no sock puppetry going on.Pea73 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't believe you! Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment Dear everyone, I signed into my account today to receive this message:

Sock puppetry

Aisha285, please be aware that sock puppetry - that is, creating and using multiple accounts in order to influence the result of a vote - violates Wikipedia policy. There is ample circumstantial evidence in the AfD vote located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depletist (second nomination) to suggest that you are creating multiple accounts to influence the result of that vote. If you have, in fact, done this, please revisit the AfD page to indicate which comments are your own posted under those multiple accounts. Thank you. --DachannienTalkContrib 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say about this, is that, I AM NOW BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. Please read this carefully:

I only put this page up to help people, not to create problems. People are also using Wikipedian terms against me such as "SPANK THIS AUTHOR" or "SALT" or "EXPUNGE." I am a new author, and my intentions have only been good. If you read the article about "Depletist" you would realize that the intentions are good ones. Hopefully this would make you realize that a person who has good interests like this, would not take steps to violate any Wikipedia rules. Creating multiple accounts is an obvious violation. Also, I should point out that I cannot sit here all day, I do have to make a living to survive daily. Anyhow, I would rather be out creating a better awareness of this word and movement, because this page shows that many people are not educated in this matter, (while of course, thankfully, some people are).

Unfortunately, there have been many rude remarks made that I do believe to be quite unfair. I did not come to wikipedia to create hatred. I came here high spirited, and have been let down. Fortunately, I realize through this, that not everyone knows this word yet. Please help humanity in this positive movement forward. I am positive that one day "depletists and depletism" and the great events that have happened around it will be recognized by everyone and prevented. Even if this article is deleted, I still thank you Wikipedia. You have only given me more incentive to keep working hard in this endeavour. Cheers. Aisha Sheikh 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Salting is not necessarily a reflection on you, merely a shorthand for "delete and protect". It's an indication that contributors, possibly including you, but certainly including other members of the "think tank", would continue to create this article, which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. SPANK THIS AUTHOR is probably inappropriate if you're a new editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:22, 4 December 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.