Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krypto-revisionism

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. Wickethewok 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krypto-revisionism

This comics-cruft neologism is non-notable (brings only 1,100 Googlehits when you remove "Wikipedia" as a keyword, and even then, almost all of these hits are still clones of this article, Wikipedia-referential, and/or fake spammer-bot sites. No valid primary sources on this as per WP:RS. Not even worthy of merging into Retcon or Superman. wikipediatrix 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - a mention can be made in Fanon, but the term is not notable enough to have its own article; examples are possibly WP:OR and best handled under the topics they refer to. Ergative rlt 17:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the Fanon entry is poor and not as detailed as the krypto-revisionism entry. Also "krypto-revisionism" was a term specifically articulated by comic writer Steven Grant, and the first term given to this phenomena.
• Delete - Above poster, please sign your entry so we can tell who we're talking with. If the Fanon entry is poor, it will doubtless be improved by the inclusion of whatever part of this article is worthwhile. I, however, see no content here to be saved. Steven Grant can have whatever terminology he wants for this phenomenon, but that serves as no evidence that it's a significant term of art. Lots of professionals coin terms that never make it into their profession's jargon, and (as nominator points out) the article cites no evidence that anybody else on the planet uses this term. The meat of the article is the "Use" section, which shows no evidence of being anything but original research laced with weasel words about what "many fans" think. - Stellmach 13:27, 29 August 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.