Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic capital

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 Keep/No consensus to delete --JForget 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic capital

Erotic capital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Looks like a neologism without much mileage. It was invented by Adam Isaiah Green, and the article was created by Adamisaiahgreen (talk · contribs), so there may be a conflict of interest present. I couldn't find any use on Google or online journal databases. Wafulz (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete based on current content. Google Books and Google Scholar indicate use of this phrase going back to the 1950s and 1960s; consequently, Adam Isaiah Green could not have invented the phrase recently, and the references to his works are probably not needed due to the conflict of interest involved. It might be possible to create a worthwhile article on this topic, though, so a rewrite which establishes this phrase as a notable concept might be worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on 16 GScholar hits, 43 Google Books hits and 13 Google News hits - this shows the concept is established not only within academia but in broader culture also. Metropolitan90's objections strike me as WP:PROBLEMatic; areas in which the article could be improved rather than reasons why the topic is non-notable. It seems very likely that there is conflict of interest, but I think this is fundamentally irrelevant to deletion debates - we wouldn't delete the A.C. Grayling article if it turned out he wrote it, we would base our arguments on the notability of the topic. Skomorokh ^confer 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Use in academic journals: [1], [2] Skomorokh ^confer 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a completely different topic though? These journals are from 1995 and 1967, and this term "builds on" work from 1980 and (I think) claims its origin in 2005. Is there any evidence any of these uses are the same?-Wafulz (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The concept of capital is rather discretely defined, i.e. social capital so much so that it would be difficult for Mr. Green to try and attach an esoteric meaning to the phrase. I think if you study the usage of the phrase across the range of above listed sources you will concur that it is broadly consistent with Mr. Green's definition of "the quality and quantity of attributes that an individual possesses which elicit an erotic response in another." So what we have here is a case of WP:COI and more than likely WP:WEIGHT, as well as perhaps disingenuous claims of originality by Mr. Green, all unfortunately attached to a notable topic. Skomorokh ^confer 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Green claims to "develop" not "originate" the concept.

Prior iterations of the phrase "erotic capital" do not by themselves represent the development of a concept. As an example, in sociology, Arlie Hochschild is credited with the development of the concept "emotional labor", even as this phrase had appeared countless times in various and sundry literatures prior to its publication in her work. Similarly, Dr. Green offers the first systematic attempt to define and develop the concept-i.e., the casual, diffuse appearance of the words of a concept in previous literatures does not represent the advent of a concept--the latter which requires an explicit degree of formalization. Moreover, the entry provides two citations to scholarly articles, including the journal Sociological Theory-- the American Sociological Association's premier theory journal, thus discounting the charge of "neologism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.89.115 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This does seem to be a phrase which has been in use for some time, rather than a neologism; it would be better to have sources which are actually about the phrase, but overall I think there's enough here to justify a keep. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This "neologism" is winning me a business pitch, made to a social marketing company. Highly useful in terms of understanding the sociology of sexuality, and shows enough potential to grow into a formidable article in time. And, it also meets WP:NOTE fine. Yep, this seems to be more notable than half of the floatsome-jetsome Wikipedia has collected over time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but it isn't helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Probably well used enough by now. DGG (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep but needs better sourcing and balance. This is definitely a term with some history beyond Green. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There appear to be a lof of "feelings" in this discussion about whether or not the term has been used in the past, but NO evidence. My own search reveals varied use of the phrase "erotic capital" (in some cases as a descriptor of Las Vegas or Amsterdam!) but no systematic development as a social scientific concept. Very few concepts drop from the stork to the dictionary, and why would we expect them to? In short, if there is another operationalization of the term in a reputable book / journal that is consistent with the current, then let it be added to this entry. Otherwise, casual use of the term in the absence of terminological development is not relevant for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.92.140 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as the references provided in Erotic_capital#References indicate sufficient coverage of this term in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 10 February 2008 (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.