Deletion of Carnism

Comment: Article states that the term was coined in 2001.  If true, this makes it a neologism.   is then the relevant guideline, and it says that before we have articles on a neologism, we need |reliable sources that are ''about'' the term, not just that use the term.  For notability, we require that the reliable sources be independent.  And, in order to be able to write an article adhering to the policy on having a |neutral point of view, we require multiple reliable sources.  Right now we have no sources.  In the article history we have one source that is not independent and may or may not be reliable.  We don't satisfy  and thus won't be able to satisfy  and , so the article needs to be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:NEO||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: per nomination. I believe this is clearly not what wiki intended per . "wiki is not a dictionary". The article is a primary sourced article by the author and coiner of the phrase, which thus counts as original research  per  - it could easily have been "omnivorism". The author is attempting to introduce a political ideology out of something so universal, and automatic that it does not involve choice at all. The introduction of choice into the consumption of meat is, I suspect, with the agenda of eradicating the human consumption of meat.  soapbox. "Carnism" scores 121 unique Ghits out of about 459. The saying does not appear to have gained widespread usage, and the originator herself would probably be excluded from wiki for not being sufficiently notable. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dr+Melanie+Joy%22&hl=en&hs=sDH&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N 14 unique hits out of 26 for "Dr Melanie Joy", a name shared by another physician in the United Kingdom. No relevant Amzhits for Melanie Joy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Even before Ms. Joy "coined" the word, it was in use in several contexts. She was simply the first to write down its definition, it seems. Deleting the entry appears to be much more of a "political" move than letting it be.|Wikipedia is not censored. -CZ  —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Also, please help us by showing us which ones are ''about'' the term, as required by , instead of just ''using'' the term.  At a first glance, the ones that would be most persuasive if about the term would be those by people other than you and those in academic journals (versus activist/lifestyle journals).   For non-web sources, adding appropriate quotes to Talk:Carnism|the article's talk page may help, but better yet would be to quote and |cite in the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:cite)

Comment: You, a supporter of keeping the term on Wikipedia, have actually just given the strongest reason to delete so far. "It is a relatively new term which is directly reflected in its limited 'visible' usage. This is also sigificantly restrictetd to academia." According to our guideline on Neologisms (), a neologism of that sort is precisely the kind of word that does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. People wear a Che Guevara print T-shirt. That has entered the social zeitgeist. Assuming that you're actually correct about this term being encyclopedic, come back in ten years when it's reached that level of popularity. Come back when it has achieved substantial "critical consideration" that you think it deserves. In the meantime, |Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Melanie Joy and others to try to spread a vegetarian ideology, or to make some kind of point about social consciousness
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NOT)