Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbism

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 delete. We are not deleting the word, merely the Wikipedia article, which does not demonstrate the notability (or even use) of the word.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garbism

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

Transwiki candidate, dictionary definition only with no encyclopedic information. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — not even a transwiki candidate because no-one uses the word. See google search. ... discospinster _talk 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Delete and possibly Transwiki per it being only a dictionary entry. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. Google, JSTOR, and Ebsco know nothing of it; why I bothered searching them is beyond me, considering that the article all but says outright that this term was made up in a sociocultural psychology class sometime this semester. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I also think [Wiktionary] wouldn't want it, but I'm not too familiar with those criteria, so I could easily be wrong. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No g-scholar hits and one unrelated g-books hit = hoax. 130.101.168.220 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above, having done my own Google search and come up empty. I took the liberty of removing a speedy tag since, AFAIK, neologisms/protologisms aren't suitable for speedy deletion, but I think this process will suffice to dispose of any questions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP This word is applicable in academic settings, as a framework for discussing a common yet often overlooked form of prejudice. To delete this word would be to deny the existence of the prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.19.57 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (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.