Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvetism

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velvetism

I added this page to Articles for Deletion because it appears to present original thought (or simply be a hoax), as a search for 'velvetism' on Google reveals nothing but a CD named that. -- Saaber 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that. Velvetism is actually pretty popular among small socialist and anarchist circles in my high school. I guess word just spreads quicker in some areas than in others... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.224.135 (talk • contribs).

You mean to say you've never heard of Velvetism? Well sir, velvetism is a much larger movement then your awareness of it gives it credit for. Held in high regards by many who value the socialist and libertarian movement, Velevetism has grown imensely in the recent past. Velevetism is one of the few ideologies that supports legalization of vicitimless crimes such as marijuana use, which is the most likely reason that it has such a large group of teen agers and young adult followers. Maybe you dont support liberal values which is why you have not heard of Velvetism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.215.159 (talk • contribs).

Good lord, that's a full two so far. Or one person on two computers, with IPs that similar, but I can't tell. -- Saaber 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - they're having us on. Camillus (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've never heard of Velvetism before. I tried to google it but only found stuff about music. —Bronks 1 February 2006.
• redirect to Velvet Revolution. I'm a mad old lefty and I've never heard of it, but then apparantly it's only popular amongst 'small socialists' and I'm normal size MNewnham 16:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• deleteI have never heard of this movement and I am huge (socialistically speaking). In fact it does not seem to resemble any "gentle revolution" ideology that would be drawn from the name velvet revolution. GeorgeSears 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete - That is an extremely strange and seemingly implausable revolutionary theory. Who developed this theory and why? I've not heard this term before.Solidusspriggan 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified and/or extremely non-notable. Turnstep 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Google refers to a CD of the same name rather than this see [1]. Seems to be popular amongst the students of Kermit T. Frog High School for sockpuppets but not elsewhere.Capitalistroadster 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, unverified, completely non-notable (913 Google hits, and none of them seems to refer to politics). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced/unverifiable. Nothing in several academic indices covering politics. CDC (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, joke page. Same author as The Petros Religion. Expect to see your user page vandalised for voting delete (see Talk:Velvetism). I am gay apparently, which like you know really hurt me :) --kingboyk 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, most likely hoax. Do NOT redirect to Velvet Revolution: origin of this name is known and has nothing with the article (a Western female journalist was so impressed by lack of violence and high level of cooperation that she compared the political overthrow to her favorite clothing. It caught immediatelly in world media as handy narrative abbreviation and good for marketing and unfortunately the term sticks until today). Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with all of the above. Um, just to let you all know, the IPs who posted the unsigned comments appear (but I have not confirmed) to belong to a school district...I would not be surprised if this was a protologism concocted by a small group of stoners. - CorbinSimpson 05:19, 7 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.