Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Mormon

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The result was Speedily kept per nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Molly Mormon

Molly Mormon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:NOT#DICT. This term is fairly well-known to Mormons, but it has no fixed definition, as the talk page proves. Also, it's seldom used outside the faith, as its 665 google hits prove. This article attempts to document usage of the word, as preserved on the internet, but also includes sizable helpings of WP:OR. This is not an encyclopedia entry, and it should be deleted, or possibly transwikified to wikitionary where "Molly Mormon" is sadly still a red link. Cool Hand Luke 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Recommend close as keep per article improvement and WP:SNOW. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete It really dosen't need to be an article, and it dosen't have that much purpose to anyone but Mormons or school kids with reports. Probably even school children don't use it. It's not that big either.--Kkrouni 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This statement is true of literally hundreds of articles about people, places, and things in Mormonism. We'd be deleting articles about Mormon prophets, buildings, seagulls, historians, not to mention articles about every other religion too, if we went by the "it's only interesting to Mormons" criteria instead of following the stated criteria at WP:N, which this article clearly now satisfies. Reswobslc 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This nomination is a frivolous expression of personal bias. Luke wants this article gone, and this is his third rationale. The first was that it was a neologism, then when references were added showing 20+ years of usage, he backpeddled on that and then complained about too few cites. Now that cites are plentiful, now his problem its "only" got 665 Google hits. But Wikipedia has room for him to create (and boast about creating) an article about a barely-notable seagull-sized seagull statue at LDS Temple Square, which scarcely even deserves a mention at Temple (Latter Day Saints). I guess Luke's criteria for inclusion is whether it makes everything Mormon look shiny and delightsome. Reswobslc 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, my first comment on the article (which you label "backpeddling" above) was to truthfully remark it could never be more than a dictionary definition. Feel free to remove your personal attack. Cool Hand Luke 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The term has been used in novels and other contexts and the article is far more than a dictionary definition. The rationales for deletion seem a lot weaker than this article. Nick mallory 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be precise, this article has only 341 unique Google hits, the rest are redundant. wikipediatrix 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would note the signal-to-noise ratio on those hits is pretty high. Most of those 341 unique hits uniquely refer to some article of print, or bloggers by the dozens using it on their blog, fully consistent with the way this article describes it. This phrase has appeared in print so many times before the Internet even was, which carries far more weight per WP:N than "only" having so many Google hits. Reswobslc 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article is more than a dictionary definition, and has references. Argyriou (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, article is more than a mere dicdef, is well referenced, and possible WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I resent that. This article was just recently undeleted from a PROD where three previous users believed the article should be deleted for related reasons. Nonetheless, this should obviously be SNOWed, and I withdraw my nomination in light of some recent improvements. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 31 July 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.