Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kakistocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 and salt. Sr13 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kakistocracy
Because it's bollocks. cornis 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and WP:SALT. Page was tranwikied to wiktionary, and keeps being recreated. Lurker 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Neologism, dictionary def, and a rather poor attempt to make a joke about George W. Bush. Wildthing61476 13:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be "Kakocracy" anyway. Bastardised Greek.--Docg 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Drivel. Nick mallory 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment it is NOT a neologism, Chambers Dictionary, 1983, has "'kakistocracy', noun, government by the worst. From the Greek 'kakistos', superlative of 'kakos', bad, and 'kratos', power." The OED has examples back to 1829. The joke about GWB is weak though. No objection to deleting on grounds that it is a dictionary definition, but please check your facts before claiming neologism or bollocks. DuncanHill 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I could remove the comment regarding GWB, but then the page is still just a dictionary definition at that point, which might merit a merge into Wiktionary. Wildthing61476 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article as first presented was just another attack George Bush page. That material has been edited out to leave a dictionary definition of a word. Nick mallory 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note- There already is a definition at Wiktionary. The page was transwikied before and recreated. Which is why I think it should be protected against recreation Lurker 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw that actually regarding Wiktionary, delete and slat at this point. Wildthing61476 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note- There already is a definition at Wiktionary. The page was transwikied before and recreated. Which is why I think it should be protected against recreation Lurker 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article as first presented was just another attack George Bush page. That material has been edited out to leave a dictionary definition of a word. Nick mallory 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I could remove the comment regarding GWB, but then the page is still just a dictionary definition at that point, which might merit a merge into Wiktionary. Wildthing61476 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to George W. Bush. Delete unless significantly expanded. More a term of abuse than a notable concept, really, to the best of my knowledge. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)- Delete or send over to Wiktionary if not already there. I agree with DuncanHill that it's not a neologism as I've seen it in lists in encyclopedias and strange word books but there is not enough here for an article. Keresaspa 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A5, it has been transwikied SalaSkan 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per Lurker in first entry in this discussion. Deor 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment of the kaka, by the kaka and for the kaka ~ Infrangible 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a defn. JJL 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom and drop it in a salt marsh. RFerreira 06:35, 12 June 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.
