Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seastead
- 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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion as libertarian neologism with little impact on discourse (delete under WP:NEO). Fewer than 1,000 hits on google[1] (with the bulk being from blog posts and chat forums etc..) Zero relevant hits on Google Scholar[2], indicating term is not being used in serious academic discussion. A Google Books search brings up "Seastead" as a neologism coined in the late 1960s to describe the possibility of a US federal government initiative to encourage the US States to distribute sea resource rights to entrepreneurs more effectively (a plan which I'm sure the libertarians would hate)[3]. This 1960s government neologism doesn't seem to have caught on, which is why we don't even have underwater sea colonies today, never mind cities on the moon. The Books search also suggests "Seasteading" as a slang term used to describe self-sufficient sailing (sort of like Kevin Costner in Waterworld but without the gills). The sailing term seems to date back to the 1970s[4]( see the reader comments on amazon). A Factiva multi-decade search of newspapers and magazines only brought up a few hits, which were all related to the 1970s sailing movement or to people with Seastead as a surname. Perhaps the libertarian neologism will became more influential in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Possibly an article about Seasteading - the self-sufficient yachting lark - is in order, but this would be best filed under Seasteading which is currently just a redirect to the afd article. Note that Patri Friedman, one of the coiners of the libertarian neologism is currently under afd nomination scrutiny.Bwithh 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per thorough and impressive research by nom. Tyrenius 05:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Google search for Seastead minus Friedman creates
43ca. 500 hits. ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so that's how you do it! I was using the apparently buggy Advanced Search page Bwithh 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually not sure. Google seems to recognize OR as a Boolean term, I'm now thinking it might recognize NOT as a search term. Will investigate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it looks like Google considers NOT a search term per the results. I get roughly 500 hits using minuses, but also sone very odd aberrations. In any case, better stick to the much better researched nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually not sure. Google seems to recognize OR as a Boolean term, I'm now thinking it might recognize NOT as a search term. Will investigate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so that's how you do it! I was using the apparently buggy Advanced Search page Bwithh 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per well-researched nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. More great detective work on the AfD page.--IslaySolomon 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Borrar/Delete either or :-) NOVO-REI 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neo and barnstar the nom. Good work! --DarkAudit 14:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and an anti-Barnstar for Google. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good work nom, I was prepared to let this go before reading that. SM247My Talk 04:54, 7 July 2006 (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.