Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing a Ratner

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 redirect. W.marsh 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doing a Ratner

Doing a Ratner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms indicates that articles on neologisms may not be appropriate. I would feel more comfortable if this article were a redirect to Gerald Ratner where the phrase is already mentioned in sufficent detail to explain it. As it stands this article mainly mirrors the Gerald Ratner article, with the addition of a questionable list of other people who have "done a Ratner". The selection of people for this list is highly subjective and is possibly OR. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - references provided. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep does seem to be a fairly well-recognised term, in the UK at least. Well-sourced, especially the strong BBC article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Neologisms such as this do exist, so there will be references - as the guideline says: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" So we need to look at those references to see if they are using the term or are about the term. All of the sources simply use the term, and only one - [1] - could be said to devote a section of the report to be about the term. There is a paragraph in which the history of the term is explained. However, the report is not actually about Doing a Ratner - the report is about Barclay's chief executive Matt Barrett who has "candidly criticised his own product, suggesting that the astute consumer would do well to steer well clear of it."

In the article, once the term is explained, there is little more that can be said about it, and having a list of examples to explain the term is unneeded and excessive. The example is Gerald Ratner himself. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Gerald Ratner#The speech. Article fails to meet the WP:NEO guideline because it doesn't reference any secondary sources about the term. We're really looking for sources on usage of language here. GRBerry 03:15, 11 November 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.