Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randroid

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 Merge to Objectivist movement. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:49Z

[edit] Randroid

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

Useless neologism, unencyclopedic Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Compress into one sentence and Merge into Objectivist movement. It seems to get a fair amount of usage, but I doubt much more can be said about it, and the overall criticism of Objectivism is already in that article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Objectivist movement per Starblind. NeoFreak 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and no merge. if you merge it, the people who work on that page will do their best to delete the content. this is one perspective on certain groups in the Objectivist camp that needs to be present in wp in order to have neutral articles, as the articles are remarkably biased in favor of positive depictions of objectivists. --Buridan 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • merge. This is just a definition. Buridan: Wikipedia policy frowns on creation of POV forks (that is, articles that are created in order to provide one side of a story). Criticisms of Objectivism should be in the Objectivism article, even if putting them there requires overcoming the objections of biased editors. If the criticisms get too long, you can put them in a new article (say, Criticisms of objectivism), leaving a summary at Objectivism.-Fagles 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, but all you have to do is look where any significant criticism ends up in those articles, take for instance the ari's pages... constant fight to remove all criticism, even those that are true and citable, eventually people just give up, and that's that. --Buridan 05:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a dicdef, so has no place here. Offer it to Wiktionary, maybe, but I suspect it will fail their guidelines. WMMartin 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect. The word has been around as a term of abuse for at least 20-something years, and is definitely notable, but there just isn't much to be said, and nothing to be said which shouldn't be said in Objectivist movement instead. Αργυριου (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - sourced and encyclopaedic but not obviously expandable. TerriersFan 00:54, 25 February 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.