Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing a 360

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 per CSD G7 - the only substantial author has requested deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a 360

Unsourced article defining Neologism with a touch of thinly veiled Spam. Moved to AfD because author removed Prod. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only usage I'd previously heard of for this phrase was the one which appears briefly at the end, relating to spinning a car. In that context it would be a slang term and would find a home in a different wiki, but not in WP. The main part of the article relates to something being advocated by one Nancy Ash. I see no-one else talking about it, so this article would appear to be be a simple attempt at promoting it. ClickRick (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unreferenced, unencyclopedic, admitted neologism. I don't see how this article could be made notable--RadioFan (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the "article" 360voice not a pure promotion for a web-site? We don't understand...seems subjective, not objective...with respect, even unfair--not following one of the pillars. Also, does one person not hearing something make it not valid elsewhere? ["The only usage I'd previously heard of for this phrase was the one which appears briefly at the end, relating to spinning a car."] (from the UK) Dear Adminstrators: Generally, more time needs to be allowed for citing references, etc. Of course "doing a 360" is a respectfully admitted neologism; how could it not be? Have you recently read the article on that topic? Neologism is a controversial subject so how can only one mind decide it's not valid? Are you sure you are impartial? Please explain...thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Ash (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the pages Wikipedia:Neologism and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly poorly-formed neologism. If you were to do a 360, you'd end up in the same place you were!. Nothing would change, unlike what is asserted here. The term is actually "a 180". Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even snowball delete. Non-notable neologism. As it is right now, it's a weird mishmash of a general defence of neologisms, self-promotion, a discussion of other uses of "360" and some unsourced, non-notable self-helpish spiritualistish stuff - there isn't even an assertion of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary take neologisms per policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - there appears to be a nub of stub in there, but most of it is pure bunk. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion. Note that this has been speedied previously. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We thank you for all of your comments...they are very interesting and helpful. We most appreciate the very weak keep suggestion from Bearian. He seems to have a more objective, impartial awareness. Helping others to improve articles would be great...pulling the nub, so-to-speak. Adding extra space was not intentional vandalism...thought it was okay. (like here...)

By the way Nate from Sheboygan...someone here has deep roots in that town, too! Truly...no joke. We wanted to respond to your comment about 180/360 and help clear it up for you. Wrap your head around this one: If you walk a labyrinth (great example of "doing a 360") you exit exactly where you started. When finished one is empowered, relaxed and focused...changed. So, new friend from the brat(wurst) capitol of the world, "doing a 360" is going full-circle...you go through changes...it's a metaphor for the journey of life. If you were to do 180-degrees...you would be going the wrong way, or turning away from your problems. Remember example given about sliding on ice in a car? Being from Wisconsin I'm sure you've heard of that? Imagine doing a 180 as you incorrectly suggested...yikes, you'd be in a dangerous situation going against traffic. Doing a 360...you'd be safe...scared from it, yes...but safe that you are facing the correct way to travel on. Does that help? So, yes...you're right in a way...you do end up in the same place...but you are incorrect about no change taking place. It's all about the change...that's the whole meaning of "doing a 360." Referenced "notable' mythologist Joseph Campbell explains the circular journey ubiquitous in all cultures throughout history. Perhaps exploring his work would be interesting for all of you in this regard? Especially Dawn from Canada... We have made effort here to improve this article. May you all "do a 360" with your lives to be better at whatever it is that you do...Thank you again. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Ash (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hate be a wet blanket, but this is not the forum to discuss the merits of the "doing a 360" or any other philosophy. The purpose of this project is to provide comments directly related to the acceptance or removal of the article. Having to wade through unrelated comments only complicates the administrative review of this project. I suggest any further comments be placed on the editor's talk page rather than here. A quick reminder that one needs to sign one's entries by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of their message.

Nancy Ash, you have indicated in your Edit Summary that comments seem to have vanished. Please review the Project History and advise where you see items that have been removed. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically rhubarb. Creator's username indicates probable COI as well. And Original Research. Peridon (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Request Deletion: Thank you ttonyb1 for a sensible and helpful response. It seems that the topic of this article has created quite a stir! Rhubarb...? We have decided that the general atmosphere of the Wikipedia new page 'patrol' process seems to be hostile and not helpful. A few of you (as the aforementioned ttonyb1) have been professional and constructive in this project. Some have used an inappropriate, unnecessary, and unprofessional approach which quite frankly surprised this group. Remember, we are all people at the keyboard. Most of you advertize or promote yourselves on your personal pages as writers, professionals, etc. hoping to become Administrators. If the tone of comments here is typical to Wikipedia (as it seems to be while reviewing other pages) then your "encyclopedia" may continue to lose credibility. Therefore, we (all editors) request that you remove this article, Doing a 360 asap. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. (4 tildas...missed earlier) Nancy Ash (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (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.