Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dowism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus = SimonP 06:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dowism

Non-notable dictionary definition. Describes a couple of one-off uses of this "humorous term" or "misspelling." This probably doesn't deserve to be in Wiktionary either. NTK 05:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 07:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's got a reference. Is the ref good? If so, it would redirect to an article on the book (or just keep this). Only delete if the ref is bogus - David Gerard 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no "reference." The humor book it mentions only uses the word once as a joke/neologism in the author's fictional biography. It does not actually describe "Dowism" because there is no such thing. NTK 14:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Of very slight usefulness. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't google much (~200), so NN neologism, so delete. Radiant! 14:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; at the very least, a likely misspelling of "Taoism", but I think this is more useful than a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. Even the article admits to the lack of use. Edeans 03:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 04:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 21:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.