Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtualism

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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed economic system - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No third-party references, no evidence that this term is in use except by its author. (Note: virtualism is also an unrelated religious term.) Possibly a promotional for the book "Virtualism: A New Political Economy". (Contested proposed deletion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N. The article practically tells us it doesn't meet WP:N, with the mention in the notes section saying "The virtualism is not established term at this moment". It was hard to do a Google search for it, as the term can be rather universal, but the only possibly related thing I really noticed was the book. As for this article being a promotional for the book, I rather doubt it. The article says: "The book "Virtualism: A New Political Economy" doesn't really provide a clear definition of the term virtualism and as such shouldn't be used as source of interpretation for this term." Even if this article is not deleted, that notes section needs to be moved to the talk page. I'll leave it for now, though. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence has been added to the article in response to me proposing the article for deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified original essay. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need more time to make the term works. Can we have at least one month before the final decision is made?

There are three main reasons that you as editors of Wikipedia should keep the term alive for some time.

You don't have a clue what we are trying to do, so it makes sense to wait a little bit
Sometimes it's fine to build the term artificially and use Wikipedia strictly as marketing tools
Finally if the idea will be implemented than it will be beneficial for huge number of people

By the way everybody here is welcome to participate in this enterprise. All questions and concerns will be answered as precisely as possible. Dukedomain (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes it's fine to build the term artificially and use Wikipedia strictly as marketing tools." No, it's never fine; in fact, this is expressly prohibited by the policies. (Wikipedia is meant to be a compendium of existing knowledge, not a means of making something known.) "Finally if the idea will be implemented than it will be beneficial for huge number of people." Okay; when it's implemented, or when the idea gains significant third-party attention (like communism, libertarianism etc.), it will be notable and will have an article. No earlier. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the article's creator defends it by saying that it is okay to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool for something made up one day, and then that that day is in fact some day in the future yet to be determined ... You almost wonder if we need a new CSD criterion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being a verifiably notable thing WP:NRVE and for being a self-promotional cry for publicity WP:SPIP. Sarasco (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - it's quite categorically not "fine" to use Wikipedia "strictly as marketing tools" and "build the term artificially". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pending - I appreciate all the comments that were done even though they are all negative. In the future it will help us to defend the term. Mike's last comment in some way I feel was supportive. It's too bad that Wikipedia does not allow to have pending/temporary status for articles in question. "for being a self-promotional cry for publicity" - it's too early for us to look for publicity in a serious manner. The main reason in creating the term on this stage was too see if somebody has some argumentation against of using "virtualism" as the name of the economical system that's based on virtual money and present lightweight alternative to the state. Also it's very practical to make some kind of semantic reservation for this term. I treat the whole experiment as very successful because no one here said - something's wrong with using the word "virtualism" in the context that was presented.Dukedomain (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (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.