Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moralphobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Joyous 00:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moralphobia

Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • In a world where there can be homo"phobia" there can certainly be moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential: caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem
    • Unfortunately I have no idea what "moralphobia" is. Neither does the OED or Webster's. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • fortunately "homophobia" hasn't long been in the OED. We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem
        • I think the "oft touted tolerance" left the building at the precise moment you started ranting about "moral deviancy." And don't call me a liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • And how much ranting is in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_deviant Is it the word "deviant" that has set you off? Why don't you move to delete the previously cited article? Comment by User:Crushthem
        • We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we're witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • right because that argument didn't apply to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia What are you people 'afraid' of? Comment by User:Crushthem
      • "Neologism" means "new word". A word that only gets 8 Google hits and isn't in any dictionary doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. As for what I'm afraid of, I'm afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. --Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
  • Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Considering the only real "absolute truth" is death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight. Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia." Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word, it's still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way. See Wikipedia is not... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice - because I never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. --Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The same for "bad". An example: It would be stupid from me to reject all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in other religions, philosophies...) but the catch... It's all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. -- Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the nonsensical neoligism. -- ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn't this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: - original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's what I'd say, but there was no "research" involved. It's more of an "original rant." Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still falls under Wikipedia's definition of original research, but it's my opinion that the word "research" is too good for this crap. --Szyslak)
  • Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of this "word" outside the mind of the article creator. --Dtobias 04:10, 23 Jan 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.