Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotacracy

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. Cbrown1023 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lotacracy

Lotacracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. voldemortuet 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. It would probably suit better use there Jamesbuc
  • Keep and improve. There is enough material available to develop this in to a full encyclopedia article, by discussing the history of the term, and history of lotacracy in Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barastert (talk • contribs).
  • There is already an article named Floor crossing. The term is nothing but a regional synonym. There isn't any need for a redundant, parallel article. voldemortuet 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, after hearing everyone arguments, I think it makes sense to have this article in wiktionary or somewhere rather than here. So change my vote to delete. --Barastert 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per voldemortuet. A local neologism referring to a globally occurring political phenomenon. No prejudice against someone who can find enough sourced material to fill an article about Floor crossing in Pakistan. Pan Dan 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Abstain per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotentot (talk • contribs)
  • Move to Wiktionary and Delete. --Sable232 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Floor crossing. Zarquon 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pan Dan. More like political slang than an actual phenomenon. --Dhartung | Talk 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or delete. Either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwicki and let them fight it out... it's really just a political neologism. SkierRMH,06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki: If it can pass their standards, then it's the exact sort of thing that belongs on wiktionary, when someone does a scholarly analysis of the trend it might be wikipedia material, but as it is it's a substub with nothing more than a brief definition. Wintermut3 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced neologism. JIP | Talk 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary. WP is not a dictionary. Mr Stephen 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced definition. Mus Musculus 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tzaquiel 16:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --NinjaJew 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a definition of a word. More appropriate for Wiktionary. WMMartin 13:27, 20 December 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.