Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology alteration

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Terminology alteration" appears to be a neologism, unused elswhere in this context, except on Wikipedia mirrors. The article itself is a pure original research essay lacking any credible citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jayjg. Also delete The Holiday, which is only linked (in this context) from this article and is just a redirect back to this article. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I too can't find anything outside Wikipedia and its mirrors.--A bit iffy 18:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is informative in regards to the present anti-Christianism, and is proposed to be deleted by the same users who vote to keep neologies such as "Common Era" on Wikipedia. Also these same users propose to delete "The Holiday" article, thus being the only other article (besides this one) in which I have created, and revert every single edit I make in regards to Christianity, therefore I am assuming they propose to delete this article only because I have created it. However, since Wikipedia has sadly equipped morons like those folks as Administrators, there's really nothing that can be done to cease this ludicrous activity. Jordain 18:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  A term like "Common Era", which has been in use for a century, and gets over 366,000 Google hits, is hardly a neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And this article actually includes the Common Era debate, which you have just ADMITTED is not neology. As for the anti-Christmas portion, there has long been hostility against Christmas because it is an exciting holiday in which obviously not everyone can enjoy. Let's not forget that Hanukkah only became popular because of Christmas (it's only a very minor holiday on the Jewish calendar), and Kwanzaa was only created in 1966! to provide an alternate late-December holiday for non-Christians and non-Jews. Jordain 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jordain, I see now there's a history of editing disputes between yourself and Jayjg. However, I do honestly believe Jayjg is correct in this case: quite simply, the term "Terminology alteration" is outside the scope of Wikipedia because it is a neologism and original research - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.--A bit iffy 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe this to be a neologism, would you also classify "Common Era" as a neologism? If not, what exactly is the difference? On the page of Political correctness, there is an sub-article defined as "Religious inclusiveness", which is what the Terminology alteration page was once called. Should it be renamed to this? Or maybe you should also vote to delete the Religious inclusiveness portion of Political Correctness, which Jayjg himself edited, but did not motion to delete. It's the exact same material as here! Jordain 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, every term was a neologism once. However, the point is that Common Era is well-established outside Wikipedia, but there's no evidence that "Terminology alteration" is well-established outside Wikipedia, and makes me think someone's come up with the term for the sole purpose of doing an article. Now, to be honest, Wikipedia's "policy" on Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is actually just a guideline, but in this case the complete lack of precedent for the use of "Terminology alteration" means the article of this name shouldn't exist.--A bit iffy 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This page could be considered as a form of political correctness, but I don't think it should be deleted. Moved or renamed, yes possibly, but not deleted. Jordain 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as neologistic term. Article also appears to contain an element of original research and a POV slant.--Isotope23 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Isotope is correct: pure neologism, OR and POV - hence, unencyclopedic. Dottore So 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per basically everyone else. WTF does "terminology alteration" really mean, anyway?--chris.lawson 23:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. blatantly pov. ericg ✈ 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Original research, POV. Jesus loves political correctness, because Jesus doesn't like for anyone to use the N word. Seriously, I asked, and He told me last week. Xoloz 05:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research... or tedious Bible-tapping (like Bible-thumping, but quieter)pseudo-rant, if you prefer. --Last Malthusian 08:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: checking book title links from the Richmal Crompton article and following one called The Holiday (it's a book: why is it redirecting?), I was intrigued to be redirected to this! I can think of many meanings for "terminology alteration", but this is far from the first I would come up with: and Google agrees. Telsa 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems a shame to get rid of it because it's hilarious, but sadly not in line with our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the page has been moved by its creator to Religious terminology debate. The AfD notice has been transferred successfully, also by Jordain.--chris.lawson 04:10, 13 October 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.