Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montesquieuian gauntlet

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montesquieuian gauntlet

Moved here to AfD from "Prod" quick delete, as this has been edited by two experienced editors and seems worthwhile of considerationif it exists -- zero Goggle hits, but perhaps someone can cite an off-line reference or something? Herostratus 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism unless verifiable references are added - it's very odd that something like that wouldn't show up on Google. Sandstein 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. I expanded Montesquieuian gauntlet a bit based on Montesquieu, but only because it was obvious. I now notice that the article creator had added the phrase to Separation of powers just before creating this article. Logical, but unhelpful in determining provenance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find any trace of this online. Also apparently Montesquieu spoke only of distribution des pouvoirs and not their separation. Dlyons493 Talk 14:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JeffQ, it seems to be mixed in with original research --Ruby 22:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. See [[WP:NEO]. Stifle 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm basing this totally on the userpages of the two editors who contributed to this. They look like people who have been here long enough to understand Wikipedia policy and I'm willing to WP:AGF long enough for them to either cite a reference or admit that there isn't one. There's also no obvious ulterior motive for producing an article like this, unlike most of the neologisms and vanispamcrufisement we get. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:14, 24 February 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.