The result of the debate was determined after careful examination of all the edits to this page. Here are the opinions of those who have edited this page - I derived this summary by going through every single diff in the article history. Some voters did not use the terms "Keep" or "Delete" in their posts - I have done my best to reclassify such posts so that it is easier to determine the overall consensus for this article. Another reason for doing this is so that others who read the result of this AfD closing will find it easier the rationale behind the close. This is a long and complicated AfD, which contributed to its delayed closing. Votes expressed after the typical 7 day grace period are counted here. I am deliberately not posting the final decision of the close at the top to encourage everyone who had an interest in this article to read through everything I am writing here. I am aware this is somewhat unconventional, but in this case, I feel that other concerns presented outweigh the need to follow uniform practise for closing AfD debates.
Even if all opinions which were considered to be from "questionable" accounts are discounted (for example, due to low edit counts, or possible sockpuppetry), the result of this debate is still at best no consensus. Now, having said this, I find that the quality of dialogue displayed on this page is not particularly exemplary of the sort of dynamic which Wikipedia requires to function smoothly. Please consider this carefully: Wikipedia (and in this case, an AfD on Wikipedia) is not the primary place to discuss the philosophies of concepts, their existence, or their validity - there are other, much more suitable forums for this. An article's existence on Wikipedia does not necessarily follow from qualification and determination of these sentiments. Discussion regarding these ideas should be invoked when it serves directly to help write freely available, quality, encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. It is my inclination that this AfD debate did not incline towards this - the exceptional amount of personal pronouns used and personal opinions expressed on this AfD is highly indicative of this. An ideal AfD should be simple to close, and only contain brief comments which answer these two questions:
Much of the debate centered on determining whether the terminology is in use, or whether it exists or not. However, none of the posts commented directly on whether any of this material is usable for the article itself. This consideration is absolutely necessary because our primary interest is to create verifyable article content, not so much determining the validity and existence of concepts. Please remember this for the future when voting for articles undergoing deletion - especially those which easily invoke strong, polarizing opinions.
Since there was some concern regarding the possible deletion of this article, let me address this by saying that if an article is deleted on Wikipedia, it does not mean that it has no place on Wikipedia. It simply means that at the current time, with the given resources, the article does not have the ability to grow into an encyclopedic article. As a result, the community has decided that, among many tradeoffs, it would be better to delete the article, and revisit it in the future. If this were not the case, there would be no need to archive AfDs. Deletion does not need to be taken too seriously - it may be more difficult to restart an article from the beginning, but this should be interpreted to be an opportunity and encouragement to rewrite something that is of better quality than what was present before. Nevertheless, I would be highly concerned if an administrator were to close this debate as "delete" - the article as it stands exhibits certain qualities which would not warrant a deletion.
So that part of sentiment of the nominator's intentions are not lost, I will repost part of the nominating statement here:
With this in mind, if an article's presence on Wikipedia siphons resources from the community which are better spent elsewhere, then perhaps it is a signal that one should actively and conscientiously pursue editing other articles temporarily where one's contributions would be appreciated and valued. The existing structure on Wikipedia can make it difficult to resolve edit wars, and I can only advocate that individuals be aware of this when the editing gets tough. It is my hope that the Magic of the Wiki can work - even for this article. This means at minimum:
I will let the more experienced and well versed Wikipedians editing the article lead by example what this entails, and hope that everyone with an interest in it follows suit. Thank you for reading - AfD closed as no consensus. --HappyCamper 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]