Talk:The Bjorn

Deletion debate

 * A group of gymnasiestudenter in Sweden have created their own religion (someone claimed they had about five members), and tries to promote it through different wikis. A number of articles connected with them have been deleted from (as far as I know) Swedish wiktionary, Swedish Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and I think from Romanian Wikipedia as well. Beware that they are persistent! \Mike 14:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I may live to regret this, but this seems no worse than echo drawing or sealed systems(TM). Why not mark it as a neologism/protologism and keep it in?  It evidently has a known etymology and meaning, and the definition given is reasonably well-formed. -dmh 15:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No need to regret just because we disagree. You are entitled to opinions.  I would ditch it.  I look more at globals for an example.  Sealed Systems derives its legitimacy from being Trademarked and by being promoted by a formally organized company.  For "The Bjorn" we should have some evidence of its usage that goes beyond the apparent invention of a group of school kids.  In my University days I knew a group of guys who established the "Pismerite" religion.  Their primary objective was to get tax-free communion wine.  I would never seriously consider including a Wiktionary entry for "Pismerite".  Eclecticology 05:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You could always contact Kammarkollegiet, http://www.kammarkollegiet.se/kk.html. They should have records of every REAL religious group in Sweden.
 * Please, what is a "real" religious group? A group entitled to collect "membership fees" the same way as Svenska kyrkan, through skatteverket? No, I think we have to use usual common sense together with some "estimate" of public interest. \Mike
 * I don't think that it's up to those of us here to try to search on a Swedish websitew. The least we could expect there is a precise link that mentions the concept.  As yet there is no article about this religion on the en:Wikipedia, and no article on the se:Wiktionary.  When at least one of those has been found acceptable we should certainly reconsider any decision to delte this item. Eclecticology 12:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought that the whole point of the "protologism" designation was to allow people to suggest words that aren't in use but maybe ought to be. Given that, it seems that we should be liberal in accepting entries, so long as
 * They're well-formed and not encyclopedic or POV, just like any other entry.
 * They're clearly marked as not in wide use.
 * There have certainly been several borderline entries lately, and I'm not sure that the existence of a few web pages should make that much difference. In this particular case, there would be a corresponding entry in Wikipedia, had they not been actively removed.  I'm not complaining about Wikipedia policy, but neither would I put too much weight on the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article.  Again, the question here is not whether "The Bjorn" is in current use -- evidently it isn't.  The question is whether to allow not-widely-used words as entries -- and evidently we do. -dmh 16:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this one even meets the basic criteria for inclusion on the protologism page, particularly the one about a need for the term. I know that there is a group at Wikipedia that is overzealous about deleting material, but is there some alternate site that explains the use of this term and its underlying theology?  The inventor of the term is not even clearly identified.  Just as Wikipedia should not be the place for original research, so too should Wiktionary become the authority that gives legitimacy to such an unneeded new word. Eclecticology 00:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Eclecticology 17:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleted again. Eclecticology 18:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)