- 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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Dirty subsidy
- Dirty subsidy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this after I nominated Dirty Subsidy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy. My reasons are the same. The term "dirty subsidy" seems to original research, ie this is basically an essay using sources that don't use the term. It's interesting but we shouldn't be creating neologisms. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete original research promoting a neologism. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- delete obvious promotion of a neologism. Mangoe ( talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this and
Dirty Subsidy unless there's some evidence that this is a term as defined that is actually being used as such. Yes, they're well-sourced, but the sources are in support of an argued premise, not summaries of its use. --
Calton |
Talk 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Calton:, you'll have to vote at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy to make your !vote count.
Doug Weller
talk 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Doug Weller: Perhaps you didn't notice that !vote above is a (literal)
cut-and-paste -- with one change -- from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy, which I made 15 hours before your advice? I also came here because of YOUR response to MY second comment there. --
Calton |
Talk 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Calton:, sorry, I'm rushing around today and these similar names obviously confused me. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Doug Weller: Perhaps you didn't notice that !vote above is a (literal)
cut-and-paste -- with one change -- from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy, which I made 15 hours before your advice? I also came here because of YOUR response to MY second comment there. --
Calton |
Talk 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
Calton:, you'll have to vote at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy to make your !vote count.
Doug Weller
talk 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete both articles per nomination and per Calton, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete both articles as original research (specifically, novel synthesis from published sources in favor of a neologism). Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OR. Septrillion ( talk) 22:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - neoligism/or. I'm !voting the same at the other article. Smmurphy( Talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (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.