Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Platinum Rule (Golden Rule variation)

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. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Rule (Golden Rule variation) (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)

Probably a non-notable neologism. Editors were discussing deleting it on the talk page in January. It gets some passing mentions in news articles but apparently nothing in any depth. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect to Golden Rule. There are a couple sources, but even if there were a few more there's not enough to justify a spin-off. I would also merge Silver Rule. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Nothing to merge. Already mentioned to the extent it needs to be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Sammy Alec Station (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that this is a non-notable neologism. Sources are not convincing re notability. Agtx (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (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.