Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankism

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 ambiguous. 5 users voted keep. 5 users voted to delete. One person voted "merge and delete" which must be interpreted as keep despite the plain wording of their vote. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article (in some form) defaults to keep.

Looking further into this discussion, I note that the second edit to this article added a great deal of content which I strongly suspect of being an unsourced excerpt from the book. That would constitute a copyright violation. The contributor was an anonymous editor who only made the one edit to the page and has not returned to Wikipedia since.

After stripping out the suspected copyvio material, this article is left with a definition of what even the keep voters admitted was a neologism. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to merge and redirect this article to Discrimination#Definition. When the concept of rankism is much more widely discussed, I believe it may become appropriate to break this back out to a separate article. In the meantime, I believe that future readers will be better served if rankism is discussed in context with the other, more established forms of discrimination. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rankism

Coined in 2003, and with only 3800 hits on google (with this article being 6th - not a good sign), not a big -ism in the grand scheme of things. I don't deny that this concept exists, but its a superset of all discrimination -isms, all of which exist in much more and much better defined terms. So, to sum that up, it's a non-notable neologism. hfool/Roast me 04:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Has plenty of potential. Dr Zen 05:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe merge into chain of command or something about pulling rank. --JuntungWu 05:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Hierarchy or Chain of command might have a place for it. Khanartist 09:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
• Weak delete - too close to neologism, even with cite - David Gerard 23:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline notable, neologism. Megan1967 00:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into discrimination. Not established enough to be encylopaedic on its own. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Martg76 05:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xezbeth 17:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. as a simple short and rememberable word of this (imho big) problem i think it has its need and use Ebricca 10:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see where this can be comfortably merged. Also, it doesn't fool the reader into thinking the term is more significant than it really is. The subject of the article, "negative discrimination predicated on rank difference between individuals", is a legitimate encyclopedia topic. Just because the title is a neologism doesn't mean the subject isn't worthy. dbenbenn | talk 04:43, 25 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.