Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgar libertarianism

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. If AfD is a debate and not a vote, I think the "deletionists" called this one. Johnleemk | Talk 06:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vulgar libertarianism

This term is very non-notable. Basically, someone put it up on his web page, and that's about all the use of it (in this context). It gets only 338 Google hits. The first three are 1) Carson's introduction of the term. 2) This article 3) An article using it to mean something else. [1] It constitutes a neologism. MrVoluntarist 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

By my count it gets 411 [2] and only a handful of those relate to Carson's Mutualist Blog (335 include no reference to it [3]). Furthermore, my understanding is that neologisms are only in violation of Wikipedia policy if they are part of original research (see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy). This is not original research. The term exists in print (as noted in the article) and on 270 pages that make no mention of the originator, Mr. Carson, whatsoever [4]. - Nihila 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know people other than Carson have used it, but they don't use it the same way. Ergo, it doesn't count toward the total for this use of the term. Like I said, the first link after Wikipedia and Carson's blog is someone who uses it to mean something else [5]. It has not entered widespread use. Wikipedia is being used to spread the term. Wikipedia is not a platform.MrVoluntarist 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify which Wikipedia problem category this article falls into? The fact that you find it non-notable / in limited use does not make it a candidate for deletion unless it is a "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" [6]. Obviously this is not the case as the term exists in print and is in at least limited use on the internet. - Nihila 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I don't find it notable. It isn't notable. You can't just invent a term on your blog and then put it in Wikipedia. The third hit on Google, after the Wikipedia article and the blog that invented it, is it using the term in a different context. So in the extremely limited use that this term has gained outside the inventor, a different meaning is the most dominant. If you want a specific policy, among many, there non-notability, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not here to get people to use a term you invented. It's here to report on terms once they become significant.MrVoluntarist 05:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the term's notability, but I'm not sure what your basis is for the claim that I invented it. I am not Kevin Carson. - Nihila 05:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you invented it. I was using "you" in the general sense, i.e., "you can't bring a horse to water and then expect it to drink" does not mean I think you brought a horse to water and expected it to drink. MrVoluntarist 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your claim that this violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". The three points listed under that heading are "Propaganda or advocacy" (I have not seen any disupute about this article being NPOV), "Self-promotion" (I didn't coin the term) and "Advertising" (there is no link in this article to Carson's blog or published work). [7] - Nihila 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what it means to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. It's not limited to the three things they're specifically enumerated. Any attempt to use Wikipedia to popularize something that hasn't caught on on its own is using it as a soapbox. Carson started usin a term on his blog, and then someone added it. If we had to add every jargon anyone invents for their blog that hasn't caught on, we'd have disambiguations for everything. MrVoluntarist 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable neologism from a barely notable author-blogger (disclosure: I'm a Misesian and probably a vulgar libertarian.) Paul 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See above. - Nihila 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-otable neologism (i.e. unverifiable from reliable sources). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Interesting and also as it derives from a notable term used by Marx -max rspct leave a message 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Too bad no one uses it except to mean something else, and even then, only 400 Google hits. MrVoluntarist 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All that says is google gave it 400 hits. Google is not the last word on notability -max rspct leave a message 13:49, 9 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.