Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Propaganda by redefinition of words

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. howcheng {chat} 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda by redefinition of words

This could easily be covered under the article "Propaganda" if it needs to be covered at all. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and follow suggetion above, if necessary. PJM 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, Propaganda is already "49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable". Kappa 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Johntex\^talk 03:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madman 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ComputerJoe 08:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone turns it into something that isn't just a POV stab at American conservatives. Subject is covered at Propaganda, Newspeak and similar articles. God knows we don't need any more Americentric conservatory/librarian controversy than we have already. --Malthusian (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The specific phrase "propaganda by redefinition of words" is strongly associated with L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed to be the first person to document the usage of this technique and who advocated its use for his followers. Therefore, even though the actual subject is already covered in greater detail at the articles Last Malthusian talks about, I would suggest that it be deleted and made into a redirect to Scientology beliefs and practices, which talks in detail about Hubbard's HCOPL titled Propaganda by Redefinition of Words and how Hubbard defined it in Scientology doctrine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this is a notable subject and shouldn't be merged. If someone knows more history about it and can make it less POV this could be a great article. Grandmasterka 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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.