Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ditherals

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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ditherals

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Bearcat. Stifle 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Now undeleted and reopened, per WP:DRV, as the speedy was deemed improper. As this discussion was never allowed to run its course, I decided to repost rather than renominate. Votes below are still valid. -R. fiend 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Only 200 google hits, and 6 unique hits outside of blogs, therefore not common usage MNewnham 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Proto t c 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Related to this [[1]]
• I am shocked that you want to delete this page. Ditherals is not widely used by the mainstream media, but is much more commonly used in regular speach and very common in political blogs especially in this election season. If someone is reading a blog, and comes accross Ditherals, they should be able to go to Wikipedia to look it up. Why delete it? I strongly object to the deletion request. There is no "common usage" criteria in Wikipedia's deletion protocol.
  • There most certainly is a "common usage" criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol; to merit an article, things on here have to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic, and (d) neutral and unbiased. This is none of the above. Consider it speedied. And before you make the accusation I know you're just itching to make, I am not a Liberal Party of Canada member, supporter or voter. Bearcat 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• I protest and repeat that there is no common usage criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol. A word does not have to be in common usage to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic. There hare thousands of Wikipedia entries in uncommon usage that are all verifiable, notable and encyclopedic. The definition was not written in a baised manner. You have deleted the page without 'Wikipedia community consensus' and in violation of Wikipedia's deletion protocol which requires community consensus. Please revive the page to aviod going throught the deletion review process. Readers of Canadian Poltics blogs are coming accross the word Ditherals every day. Lastly, you accuse me of "itching to make the accusation that you are a member of the Liberal Party of Canada" without justification and I request that you retract that statement. -Palmerston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerston (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 January 2006

• I thought the speedy delete was improper, and said so at Deletion reveiw. But a google search finds only 15 unique results, all of which seem to be blogs or forums of soem sort. I would like some evidence of notability. "Widespread use" is a good way to show notability, albiet not the only way. Has this been mentioned in print journalism, for example? can we have a cite or two? Unless notability is better established, Weak Delete. DES ^(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I might add that if it is nothing more than a defination, a wiktionary entry might be the better course, or perhaps the term should be mentioned in Liberal Party of Canada, and this page be converted into a redirect?. DES ^(talk) 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary following DES's reasoning. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. 17 unique Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Mindmatrix 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary I wrote the definition and opposed the speedy delete. I now agree that it should move wo wikitionary. Palmerston 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Does wikitionary accept derogatory nicknames used solely on blogs for several days? --maclean25 00:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. This does not automatically preclude transwiki, as whatever happens at wiktionary is out of scope of this AFD, and I really don't care what wiktionary does. If they want this, it's theirs. -R. fiend 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The reference to an Economist article doesn't check out--the leader is called "Mr Dithers" in that but the term ditheral doesn't appear, and the term on the web seems to be confined to a few political blogs.
• Delete. Partisan neologism. The Tom 19:36, 20 January 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.