Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down-wing politics

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down-wing politics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability. Relies on insufficient independent relable sources. TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Up-wing politics

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Genetics4good (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one guy's proposed schema; his book got some coverage at release but that doesn't establish notability for this concept itself. I added the related and duplicative Up-wing politics to the nom if that's alright; it uses the same sources and certainly doesn't have coverage for its own article either. Both could be merged to the author's article FM-2030 Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a noteworthy phrase.Strandvue (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info, but keep articles as redirects to FM-2030 (so somewhat similar to what Strandvue suggested). I disagree that it's just "one guy's schema" btw. It is supported by a non-profit organisation (upwingers, inc), and also by Breakthrough Institute's Steve Fuller; see links. It would also be weird to delete these articles entirely as we too have a right-wing politics and left-wing politics page. I'll move forward by duplicating the info here to FM-2030 page. Genetics4good (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neologism not mentioned in any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Salt if necessary. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (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.