Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kludgeocracy

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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kludgeocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism that was first used only 2 weeks ago. It hasn't been used widely and it is therefore too soon for us to have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term, even though it's relatively new, has received sufficiently wide coverage within the relevant field. --Xerographica (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Where? I couldn't find anything. Where are the political scientists who have taken this concept on board in political science journals and books? Where is any newspaper usage other than the small flurry of reports of the original paper around 2012-12-11 (and the opinion piece of the Al-Jazeera journalist who was a week late because of xyr fortnightly schedule)? Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People far more notable than any of us...David Frum, Tyler Cowen, David Weigel, Harold Pollack, Reihan Salam, Kevin Drum...have determined that this concept is notable enough for them to discuss. If it's notable enough for notable people to discuss...then it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. --Xerographica (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice that you're not answering the simple questions posed. Dodging the question is not a good sign. Perhaps you'd like to try again. Where are the political scientists who have taken this concept on board in political science journals and books? Where is any newspaper usage other than the small flurry of reports of the original paper around 2012-12-11? Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, and how come the president hasn't said anything about the concept? Hold on...let me call and ask him. Again, more than enough notable people have indicated that this concept is notable. Obviously you're welcome to disagree...just like you're welcome to draw your own conclusions regarding why political scientists haven't dropped whatever projects they're currently working on. But I don't think we're doing the readers any favors by disregarding what notable people have indicated is notable. --Xerographica (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First, the neologism itself doesn't seem to be sufficiently widespread. I'd expect to see a lot more than a few blog entries and news articles that quote the author. A neologism has to have a life of its own. Second, the author is not sufficiently notable, so there is no redirect target. Because that would be perfect. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the author will become notable and get his own article and then this will be a redirect to a section that discusses his successfully published work and everyone will win. Not right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice - as non-notable neologism. If this really is the "next big thing", then an article with better sources which is not a shameless plagiarism of the original paper can be created. There is no deadline we have to meet in order to prove we're hip to the latest meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides the short life so far of this neologism, everything after the first, defining sentence is a unmitigatable editorial. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism, notability issues, reliable sources issues, the term itself is not distinguishable from the essay it refers to in so-called sources, which are all about the essay, not the word. Bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable neologism --Nouniquenames 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The term Kludge (hasn't anyone noticed?) has been in Wikipedia for 10 years. Incorporate kludgeocracy into that article as spinoff of the term.--S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO; created by an editor known for creating "economic" and "political" articles from one quote, or containing only a selection of quotes. I suspect the Wikilinks "to" this article, which might otherwise give an indication of relevance, were all created by this same edtior. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.