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. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omniocracy[edit]

Omniocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article in this current form is promotion of neologism. It should be either deleted or completely rewritten, if there are reliable sources, which I can't find myself Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should not be deleted. The term is discussed in four books and those books are listed. If you do a Google search in "Books," you will see some of the pages within those books that discuss this term. I was invited 10 years ago by a higher up person at Wikipedia to create a page for this term. I did not do it then because at the time there were only a few articles on the subject. But now, in addition to articles, there are 4 books! I have heard omniocracy discussed at animal rights conventions and in speeches within the movement. It is an important word that describes a government with representation for all living beings. Animal interests need to be represented on Wikipedia, too. It should not only be a platform to promote only humans and only human-centered forms of government! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracaluncle (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lauracaluncle: Wikipedia is not used for promotion of any kind; animal, human, or otherwise. The existence of articles on a topic doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses the subject matter. Articles should exist when (and only when) the subject is sufficiently notable and verifiable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage about this proposed form of government in reliable sources. WP:NEO states that finding sources which simply use the term does not establish sufficient coverage. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that this article stay. I have heard the term used among animal activists in the U.S. and think the aforementioned citations are sufficient and reliable. Omniocracy should not be a candidate for deletion. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenclaude (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability given. This appearst to be neologism.--Rpclod (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (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.