Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anachronistic displacement

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 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronistic displacement

Anachronistic displacement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to be a term someone made up one day. In August 2007, someone put a speedy delete tag on it, and an admin removed a few hours later with no explanation; perhaps the nomination had not been completed properly. I did a Google and a Google Scholar search on this term and got no meaningful hits. The only hits on google appeared to be mirrors of this site or were mentions of the phrase created after this article was created. Jeff Dahl 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I thought this sounded familiar. See the Deletion Log. Notice, it's A4 speedy (well, it is supposed to say "G"). - Rjd0060 02:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is so far ahead of its time, it doesn't belong here in the present. Mandsford 02:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No references. UnitedStatesian 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, above. Pig^man 17:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. JJL 01:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Anachronism. jonathon 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically a neologism, therefore it should not be merged. Jeff Dahl 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, appears to be research or synthesis by a student. The content makes sense, but is not enough for an article. I'll merge the content but will not close this AfD. Bearian 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If the content is research or synthesis, which this is, then it gets deleted, not merged, even if the content "makes sense." Jeff Dahl 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. The only mention of this as a psychological condition on the web is in a couple of blogs of people who probably read it here. Cosmo0 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism, with no sources. EdJohnston 03:23, 19 October 2007 (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.