The word "rejectionist" is sometimes used in the context of the Middle East, and an article could perhaps be written about that concept. (In fact, I'm surprised it's an orphan; I expected to find at least one link from a Middle East article.) This article, however, makes no reference to any specific rejectionism. It merely talks in general terms about people with a tendency toward naysaying. The article has no or virtually no factual content. JamesMLane 08:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. First contribution by a newbie, listed when less than four hours old. Give it a chance. Welcome message left. Andrewa 17:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a valid point, and I admit I didn't think to check the contributor's history. I would love to see the article merely cleaned up (instead of deleted) so as to encourage the author to stay and improve his or her ability to help Wikipedia. Only -- if you were to clean it up, where would you start? If you remove the unencyclopedic content, you're left with "A rejectionist is". You could talk about political uses of the term, in the Middle East and elsewhere, but if you keep none of the original author's content, that's arguably worse than just flat-out deleting the article. JamesMLane 19:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi, as the author of the original article, I thought I'd reply to the comments here. I wasn't aware that abstract ideas shouldn't be included in wikipedia - I looked it up here and was surprised NOT to see a listing for it especially as it is a term that is used in the political arena. If you feel it has no "facts" (however you wish to define the term), then feel free to reject it. If however Wikipedia's aim is to INFORM people then I agree that some concrete examples would be a good idea. This reminds me, I'll look up DaDa in a minute and form my own opinion on what kinds of censorship occurs in this wiki. All in all, I reject the article and vote for it's deletion :-)
  • There's no prohibition on abstract ideas. We have an article on liberty. For that matter, we have an article on abstraction. Your article focuses on people with a particular habit of mind, and we have room for that too, with pragmatist redirecting to pragmatism (see also cynicism and skepticism). I just don't see this article as comparable to any of those, or even likely to be a good beginning toward a comparable article. I said it had no facts because it seems to say only that people sometimes reject things, that no one does so invariably, and that this tendency can be overdone. Although these are facts, they're commonplaces, so in my second comment I softened "no factual content" to "unencyclopedic content". Am I missing something? Can you make another stab at explaining what you're trying to INFORM people of? And, by the way, I reject your use of an apostrophe when "its" is used as a possessive pronoun.  :) JamesMLane 00:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Your points are noted and I'll look out for my improper apostrophes, thanks for pointing that out! As you can tell, I'm not an experienced writer of encyclopedic articles and didn't spend any time initially cross referencing the points in the article to other subjects or more concrete examples which would require more time than I had available. I had taken a first stab at an entry just so that there would be something there for someone else to work with, possibly someone with more skill at using this wiki than I have or just another perspective that could expand upon it. You have to remember that I initially looked it up, so to go on a write about it is slightly paradoxical. I'll try and cut some of the fat from the meat just to see if I can be more INFORMative, but only if you vote for it's rejection! HarryD 10:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Your approach of doing a first stab, which doesn't have to be perfect, is completely correct. Also, you're not the first person to write an article that you had originally hoped to read; I've done it myself. My problem with this draft is not that there's too much fat but that I don't understand what's intended as the meat. Maybe I just have a blind spot here. It's disappointing that more people haven't voted on this one, so we could get other perspectives. JamesMLane 12:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - original research/nonsense/not encyclopedic - Tεxτurε 16:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons explained by Texture. Also note that the original author (or somebody editing from the same IP-number) has cleared the article and marked it as a speedy deletion candidate. Not wanting to preempt a VfD discussion, I've reverted this. Lupo 18:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Move to rejectionism and clean up. Austin Hair 07:39, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If the author can produce another draft of the article with examples and so forth, then it could be resubmitted (quite legally as it wouldn't be the same article). What the author wants to do with probably worth doing, but I'd rather not have a first draft this inadequate sitting here. Jallan 22:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)