Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem hypothesis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to keep. Joyous 15:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Salem hypothesis

Term from Usenet of limited use outside the creo/evo community. --nixie 01:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If it weren't nonsense, it would violate neutral POV. How many Wikipedia-time will be spent on this page, trying to clear this off the floor? --Wetman
- I disagree, nothing is stated about the veracity of the hypothesis, nor is any particular side take. It's just an explaination.--Enigma 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: 142 Google hits [1]. But the topic isn't nonsense (it's a real, verifiable phrase; see the "Jargon file" which is Google's first hit), and it isn't inherently POV (you can write neutrally about the hypothesis without either supporting or rejecting it). dbenbenn | talk 01:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, most of the Google hits provided are forum-based from what I've seen. It lacks neutrality also. - Greaser 01:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not all that widespread of a term, and not likely to move past a dicdef. Transwiki to Wikitionary at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not even widespread in creationism circles. DJ Clayworth 04:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Has the term ever been significantly used outside of USENET? Is Bruce Salem known for anything besides USENET? If both answers are "no" then it probably should be deleted. -Rholton 06:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- To the first, yes. It is also used in various blogs regarding the creation/evolution debate. --Enigma 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Samaritan 08:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the article looks okay, except that nasty typo in "talk.origiOns". Not a dictdef, valid encyclopedia entry. Grue 19:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 23:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Marginal keep. GRider\^talk 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In-joke within a fairly restricted little coterie of netizens. No significant usage outside of one particular newsgroup, talk.origins. (Google groups search: 88 hits total, 77 of them in talk.origins). "Godwin's law" gets 54,900, BTW, so this is about 0.16% as notable; if you take into account that Godwin's law is mentioned in many, many groups but "Salem hypothesis" basically only in one, it becomes even less encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No reputable encyclopedia can afford to have articles on every little thing somebody decided to posit on the internet. Indrian 20:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Craptaculous crap, to be kind. Edeans 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DeletePhilip 03:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Insignificant usenet jargon. Martg76 05:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've seen people talking about the possible engineering/pseudoscience connection in non-creationst areas too, this appears to be a valid topic for an article. Bryan 22:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.