Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-elitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was no consensus, which means the article is kept by default. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-elitism

Anti-elitism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced POV rant, draws highly unorthodox conclusions from no evidence, WP:BLP issues due to given examples of "anti-elitists"; no evidence of topic notability in any case Eleland 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • keep. The notion is very notable. The article is easily salvageable with little googwill: it may be easily trimmed to acceptable stub based on readily googable refs, with strict control of subsequent edits. "Evidence of notability" criterion is for people and bands, where there is a danger of self-promotion. Philosophical terms are automatically notable if they are discussed in serious publications. `'Míkka 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Actually, evidence of notability is for all topics, although if terms are discussed non-trivially - not just used in passing, but actually discussed - in reliable published sources than notability usually exists. It may well be desirable to have an article anti-elitism but this one is so bad that it needs to be deleted so we can start over. Eleland 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article has no sources and is unverifiable and appears to all be original research. It contains no reliable secondary sources. The article should be deleted. If someone recreates it at a later time and writes from reliable sources, so be it. --Pixelface 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but perhaps include in Wiktionary. It's not a neologism, but 'there's no there there' in the article. --Rinconsoleao 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, seeing Thoreau, Marx, and Tom Clancy mentioned in the same list is kind of amusing... --Rinconsoleao 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Míkka. --EAEB 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per mikka. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable subject, published in countless scholarly sources. (See Google books, or a few random scholarly texts from around the world: [1], [2], [3]). Please refer to the policy that states that a lack of sources and low quality writing is an established deletion criteria on Wikipedia. Never heard the "We need to delete this article so that we can start a new, fresh article" argument before. Pia 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki To wikitionary Mbisanz 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Articles should be written FROM sources. The person writing an article should be looking at a source and writing FROM that source. Wikipedia is not a place for unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. I think it is wrong to write something and ask others to research a topic for you. Wikipedia is not here to do your homework for you. The burden of evidence lies with the WRITER, not the READER. If the writer of the material is too lazy to research a topic themselves and cite their sources, why should the reader have to make up for it? The fact is that Wikipedia articles can start rumors and they can snowball. Here's a post on kuro5hin by Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia and founder of Citizendium (or someone using his name) [4], about anti-elitism on Wikipedia -- although I don't think kuro5hin is a reliable source; it probably counts as a self-published source. --Pixelface 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and strongly clean-up. There's probably enough material to make this into a real article, but it needs to be found. --Bfigura (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete original research.--SefringleTalk 05:40, 31 August 2007 (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.