Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioconservatism

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. The nomination summed up exactly what was needed to justify this article's retention; it has not been supplied here. Before I am accused of ignoring the majority among the bolded words, AfD is not a vote. Three out of four keep arguments don't even try to argue the case; the other was adequately addressed by Trevyn. The most important bolded words here are not the ones saying 'keep' or 'delete', but the quote in the nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bioconservatism

Delete. Neologism. References are mostly a couple of blogs, which don't even provide appropriate support for much beyond the definition, hence much of article is WP:OR. Appears to be an excuse to make a list of people (most non-notable themselves) who happen to agree with a viewpoint. Fewer than 10k GHits.

If you disagree, please read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms in full before entering a recommendation.

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Trevyn 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. However, I have no problem with the list of people being deleted. --Loremaster 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Loremaster is the primary maintainer of this page, and has not disclosed himself as such. -- Trevyn 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Calm down, Trevyn. I simply forgot. I was about to identify myself as the primary contributor when you caused an edit conflict. --Loremaster 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. Here's a paper about the term: [1]. Other than that, all I really have to say is that as long as the Transhumanism article exists without question, it's hard to argue against the article for its antonym, and WP:IAR if you're otherwise going to get that hung up on WP:NEO. But I'd like to see some evidence that all those individuals listed have actually outed themselves as "bioconservatives". --Aaron 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1) That "paper" is a blog post on a distinctly non-neutral site, and claiming it is "about" the word is tenuous. 2) The existence of one article is not justification for what may be (or may not be) its antonym. 3) Regarding WP:IAR, I believe that WP:NEO is a considered guideline whose intent is to increase clarity and prevent Wikipedia from being used as a launching pad for politically-loaded words which are not in the common vocabulary. ("bioconservatism" appears to have been coined in 2004.) -- Trevyn 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Bioconservatism is not a coherent position or philosophy. Almost no one has identified him- or herself as a bioconservative. Rather than serving to characterize people who agree with a given viewpoint, the article provides a catch-all term for people whose only similarity is skepticism about implementing one or another technology. Its use has invariably been by a very few writers who contrast their favored position with "bioconservatism."--StN 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We could debate for hours about whether or not bioconservatism is a coherent position or a vague catch-all term (a debate which could be summarized and added to the article if it survives!). However, the fact that almost no one identifies himself as a bioconservative or that the term has invariably been used by writers who contrast their favored position with bioconservatism is NOT reason enough to delete this article. Otherwise, according to this logic, since almost no one describes himself as a reactionary, we should delete the Reactionary article. --Loremaster 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the Reactionary article. But there the fact that no one describes himself as a reactionary is reflected in the statement up front that it is "a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative."--StN 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have no problem with the Bioconservatism article having a similar statement as long as it acknowledges that the political epithet "bioconservative" is meant to be used as a non-pejorative alternative to "bioluddite". --Loremaster 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That "bioconservatism" is not a coherent position is, of course, not a major reason for it being inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The primary reason is that it is not in widespread use—possibly because of a lack of coherency. If, in a couple years, the term catches on, it may then be able to justify its own article. I am most concerned about the misuse of Wikipedia as the primary authoritative source for a definition of "bioconservatism". The top two Google hits, and four of the top seven, are Wikipedia and its clones. Wikipedia is intended to reflect human knowledge, not create it. -- Trevyn 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge. This could totally be a section of the transhumanism page, with some citations. Especially since, once you remove the list of people who may or may not follow this reasoning, most of what's left is links to that page. That pages is starting to get long, though.--GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Bioconservatism is a genuine ideology! -- Voldemort 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So is Trevynism. That doesn't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. —Trevyn 06:53, 11 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.