Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poorism

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poorism

Poorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ridiculous neologism; Fetches very few hits on Google, possible hoax. mcr616 Speak! 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Poorism" may be a neologism, but Poorism is not an article about a neologism. It's an article about a type of tourism that at least two reliable sources, cited in the article, discuss. Both sources even call this type of tourism "poorism," which may help justify this particular Wikipedia pagename. Pan Dan 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - may be a neologism, but the article's about the phenomenon, not the neologism. The term is used by a number of sources ranging from the "Observer" to the Smithsonian. And don't know where the nom gets "very few Ghits" from, I get 15,000. As per Pan Dan, this seems to be the term in general use for this phenomenon so this is probably the correct page title (although possibly Poverty tourism would be more appropriate with this as a redirect) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Try clicking through to page 16 of that Google search. There are only 153 unique hits. EliminatorJR Talk 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. See dark tourism, thanatourism, etc.. there are a bunch of different "neologisms" used to describe tourism. "Poorism" is obviously in wide use (ie. it is not a single person or companies term). -- Stbalbach 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Poverty tourism". Should not use the neologism as the title until it's better established. —Pengo 05:22, 29 April 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.