Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberacy

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 delete. Rossami (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberacy[edit]

Delete. Non-notable +/- original research, possibly vanity as well. 133 hits on google for this term, which appears to be a neologism to boot. - Nat Kraus e 02:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I noticed doing Google searches lots of webpages on Literacy, spelling it incorrectly as Liberacy - how ironic! Megan1967 03:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like original research and/or neologism. As the article currently says, "Liberacy is a relatively new, theoretical form of government." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neologisms are well documented in Wikipedia, view the neologism article for evidence. Article strives for objectivity, maybe cleanup instead? Megan1967 comment is spiteful. Perhaps deletion move is politically motivated? The original research is done by an organization listed at end of article, article just reflects upon it. Lumano 05:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to document a movement forming which could develop at least a fringe significance. For now, it appears to be a neologism (WP documents the existence of neologisms as a concept, but WP doesn't keep articles on each one), not quite original research (unless it's more vanity than it appears), but not yet established as notable per Google searches. Probably Lumano should userfy it for now, and if the term reaches common notoriety, then this fairly good article can be restored to main article space. Barno 15:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I userfy, and what does that mean? Is it still accessible by the author and readers? Thank you for the more reasonable appraisal, Barno. Lumano 00:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete. I'm afraid this neologism is still too new. (All the top Google searches are typos of literacy or Liberace.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, neologism, original research, crud. JamesBurns 05:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement like 'crud' seem to indicate a less-than-mature attitude toward editing. I mean I'm new here (to registerdom); I understand that impetus for removing this article; but, for God's sake, why are some of you so nasty? Lumano 08:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that JamesBurns should be more civil. The VfD etiquette rules say: "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment." I don't think anybody else is being nasty here. It's a fact that many of the google hits for "liberacy" are misspellings of "literacy". - Nat Kraus e 09:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough. Peter Isotalo 22:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research; please note that notability is not a deletion criterion, still. No, really. *sighs* James F. (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy as original research (since this article and the external links appear to be a circular reference creating this term) Jon the Geek 17:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Quale 05:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original crud. Iam 06:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, So what learn to spell Literacy. Liberacy is an interesting addtion to the Forms of Government list.

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.