Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegalitarianism

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 Speedy Delete by Maxim per CSD G6. RMHED (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegalitarianism

Made up word priyanath talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. This word receives one (1) Ghit from a message board where, surprise, someone made up the word. priyanath talk 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEO. sidenote to Priyanath, there is no need to vote for something you nominated. Nominating it is, in itself, a "vote" for deletion. Keeper | 76 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net and a vegan. I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I am in the process of establishing www.vegalitarian.com to further make all of the past and current efforts in this regard well known. I also am in contact with Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, Peter Singer, the Vegan Society, and the Vegetarian Society and could bring these people and organizations into this discussion if needed. I would thoroughly appreciate if you would remove the tag suggesting the deletion of this article. Kind regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig, the reason it's here is because it's seen as a non-notable neologism, if you'll forgive the alliteration. Please see

WP:N for details. An aside, if you'll forgive me for sounding rude, your status, beliefs, memberships and contacts have little to no weight here - an article must adhere to many things. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I should also note here that Wikipedia is
not for the promotion of a new website. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Dennis, I'm not intending to promote a website; I am also not using my position in order to convince you to keep my article. I was just identifying myself. What I am doing is giving a word to an already established idea. I can see from your earlier posts that you may disagree with the purpose of this article; is it possible that you may be biased against it, therewith compromising your ability to objectively judge its eligibility for inclusion on Wikipedia? Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.160.33 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making a personal accusation against "Dennis" will not further your cause, Stig. Please refrain from making comments and insinuations agianst another editor. You are welcome to contribute to wikipedia, however, "Vegalitarianism" is a word that you, admittedly, coined. By definition, that is a neologism and does not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you, Keeper | 76 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my post to Dennis was objective, not subjective; certainly not an accusation. If I can not use 'Vegalitarianism,' I suggest the title be changed to 'Non-speciesist Egalitarianism' until the new word, which describes this concept, is getting more wide-spread. -- Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk• contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that someone will actually type Non-speciesist Egalitarianism as a potential Wikipedea search? Really? Both "terms" are neologisms. It isn't personal. It does not detract from your personal beliefs. Let it go, is my suggeston. Keeper | 76 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis The Tiger here Mr. Harder. Please keep in mind that not being in Wikipedia does not mean that you, your cause, your connections, or you claims, are not important to you. It only means that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, as pointed out to you. This discussion will likely stay open for a maximum of 5 days, so please feel free to expand the article if you wish. I'm not saying that it will be kept, (at best, it will be moved to Wiktionary since Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms) -- but really does that matter? Does being on Wikipedia validate your personal convictions somehow? Keeper | 76 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, veggies, but
talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This article deserves the light of day; as you see in the text, many enlightened individuals throughout our past and in our present have suggested the amendment of human rights to include non-human animals as well. (The concept is fairly simple: if you acknowledge that dogs have feelings and that they can suffer, you acknowledge that non-human animals have feelings and can suffer, for dogs clearly aren't human.) I propose "Animal Egalitarianism" -- not a neologistic term. Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I,
WP:NEO. Mr Which ^??? 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Accordingly, I believe this should be speedily deleted per
  WP:SNOW, as the author himself has admitted that he made up the word. Mr Which ^??? 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have created a new article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Egalitarianism -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put this up for AFD as well. A neologism by any other phrasing is still a neologism - we are not for these. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a notable term. So delete it. I (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional/made up. • Lawrence Cohen 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I really have a hard time understanding the apparent opposition here to going a step further, beyond sexism and racism, by proctecting the rights of dogs and cats and other non-human animals to live the free lives that we ourselves live. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stig, you may want to rephrase that. Many of us have major qualms about being accused of racism, sexism, or not wanting to protect the rights of animals, and by playing that card, you will probably not win people to your side. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:NEO. This will help you understand how the fact that you admit to having "coined the word" seals the doom of this AfD. Mr Which ^??? 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mr Which, I have read
WP:NEO. You could make an exception; the word is new, but the concept is several centuries old. It just needed a term. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, no.
WP:SNOW. Mr Which ^??? 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

note to closing admin. If the result of this discussion is delete, please note that a duplicate copy of this exact article exists and was created by the same SPAuthor. Keeper | 76 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
t 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this neologism. Axl (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (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.