Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegitimate opportunity

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. Opinion shifted during the AFD as sources were identified. The key to the article being encyclopedic is whether sufficient reliable sources were available so that it can be expanded to be substantially more than a dictionary definition and by the end of the process the consensus was that it could. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illegitimate opportunity

Illegitimate opportunity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Another example of someone posting dictionary definitions in Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think it is a dictionary definition. Rather "Illegitimate opportunity theory" appears to be a technical concept in the study of criminal justice. However, as such, the concept appears to be not notable. GoogleBooks gives 8 hits [1] and GoogleScholar 5 hits [2]. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Keep per Dhartung's GoogleBooks search results. Also, a filtered GoogleScholar search for "Illegitimate opportunity" criminology gives 194 items[3], including the book of Cloward and Ohlin (who, as I understood, introduced the term) with 650 citations of its own. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the theory appears to be known in the field of criminology. -Icewedge (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, can we see some evidence for this, please? To be notable, there would have to be substantially widespread usage and acceptance of the term in the field of criminology. The few hits that GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks produce are certainly not sufficient to conclude that. If there are more sources, I'd like to see them. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability does not require that something be "widespread", and eight Google Books hits is about what I would expect for a social science theory that has not entered the popular culture. As it happens, though, I get 619 hits, so I'm not sure what search terms you're using. There is more than enough for an article covering this position. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I see now you used "illegitimate opportunity theory". It speaks for itself that this would eliminate all sorts of ... legitimate ... uses such as "what Cloward and Ohlin called 'illegitimate opportunity'", etc. Try not to exclude things unnecessarily next time. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to exclude colloquial uses of "illegitimate opportunity". But certainly some other filter such as "illegitimate opportunity" criminology was much better. That was my bad. Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was searching under "illegitemate opportinity theory". But by looking at the results of your search I see that they are talking about the same thing. 619 GoogleBooks hits is widespread enough for me, so I'll change my vote to keep. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Dhartung. asenine ^{say what?} 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete due to lack of mainstream media coverage. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 14 May 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.