Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheeple (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The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheeple

Withdraw Nomination Delete as neologism and/or dicdef. According to the prior AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheeple which was closed "No Consensus" there was already a wiktionary entry. This is here. Since WP:NOT a dictionary this article, which also does not cite its sources, is both inappropriate and, co of the Wiktionary entry, redundant. It adds no value to wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Note that the source of WSJ, 1984, removes the neologism element. Thus that is removed form nomination. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • For me sufficient work has been done to distance this from a simple dicdef, so I am withdrawing my nomination. I see further work required within the article, but that is a different matter entirely. 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I came across the term in passing in a Time article on 9/11 conspiracies recently, but it'd take more than that as a source to leapfrog the various problems well cited by the nominator above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Word use descriptions are work for a dictionary. Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a quite well known and significant concept. According to this source the word first appeared in print in the Wall Street Journal in 1984; after 22 years is it still a neologism? The current article seems slightly wide of the mark; it's most famiiar to me in the writings of conspiracy theorists. I may try to improve this a bit. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is still a dicdef so far. It will take a great deal of improvement to make it more than that. But, go for it if you can. I haven't nominated it "just to see it deleted", so make it survive, get it good citations, assert the notability and make it an encyclopaedic article that adds true value and I will withdraw. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:51, 22 September 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.