Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornocracy

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per User:MacGyverMagic's suggestion, User:Sj moved the content to The Rule of the Harlots and made Pornocracy a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism; no references that mention the term. Should be renamed or merged. +sj + 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Keep. References? There are over 11,000 Google hits (didn't bother to see how many were unique). This is an extremely well-known period in the history of the Roman Catholic papacy, widely discussed, appears in other WP articles about the papacy, etc. It may also have appeared as a modern neologism, but that is not what the article is about, which is the 10th century. I suggest the nominator read the article and the references. I can only assume this was nominated in error. --MCB 06:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote for the keepocracy This seems good enough [1] (In fact this looks like the primary source). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the good reference. Moving to The Rule of the Harlots, as the term 'pornocracy' should be a disambig mentioning its more general meanings. +sj +

• Keep as per MCB. --JahJah 08:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Rule of the Harlots, or The Pornocracy are names given to a period of the papacy in the early tenth century, doesn't indicate it to be a neologism. I'd actually prefer if it was moved back and the dab was moved to Pornocracy (disambiguation) and linked to the top of the page. Not only are the other links still red, but I imagine this is by far the mosst common use of the term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a real term. i saw it used in a wikipedia article on a pope earlier this year.--Alhutch 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the term certainly exists outside of Wikipedia and the net. I've seen it used in fairly reputable history books. --Neo 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Not a neologism. CalJW 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this Janizary 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the OED says the word is first attested in English in 1860, so it's hardly a neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per... everyone. :) --Jacqui M Schedler 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. Not a neologism.--Pharos 03:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please pornocracies are real Yuckfoo 21:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable non-neologism. Klonimus 20:29, 30 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.