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. J04n(talk page) 01:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McGuintyism[edit]

McGuintyism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsourced, appears to be an neologism with no reliable or any mention in any form. See Google search. Fails WP:RS. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just learning to create a page, so to pick a term used in political circles that has not been clearly defined seems like a good spot to start. I created a page "McGuninty" that I would like deleted because the spelling of the term was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a search for "Dalton McGuinty"+"mcguintyism" came up with only 15 hits, so this can't even really be called a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from a handful of unreliable sources, not much use seems to be made of this expression. I am slightly puzzled by the author's remark about spelling, as there doesn't seem to be an article with the misspelling, and wonder if this is the article in question? Peridon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - it's been redirected to this article. No need to do anything about it - its fate is tied to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As more information is added the article will develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Doesn't fulfill requirements of WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, straightforward. Melchoir (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as an attack page. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I don't think this inches into Attack page category, but would not object to or decline such a deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:04, 21 February 2011 (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.