Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby killer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.95.15.144 (talk) at 04:30, 6 March 2011 (→‎Baby killer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Baby killer

Baby killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A synthetic accretion of three uses of a term, with no source to tie them together. Not encyclopedic; not helpful to a user searching on the term. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I proposed this for deletion, which PROD was removed with the comment "I see two reliable sources cited in the stub, therefore it meets WP:GNG." This however is not true, as WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not passing mentions. See also WP:NEO, which says that for articles about terms, sources must be about the term and not merely attest its use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So if every sentence is tied to a reference, by definition "no original research is needed to extract the content". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that user Richard Arthur Norton has since added one source that discusses the history of the term. My vote is still delete, because one source won't cut it. More, possibly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is not applicable to a 100 year old word. "neologism" means new word or phrase, it can't be a new phrase if it was in use 100 years ago. The article sails by using WP:GNG. I suspect people are voting based on emotions and not actually reading the article or looking at the reliable sources already in use in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. (or WP:NEO). I don't see a need to transcode because the majority of our content here is already largely at Wiktionary. In general, articles about terms, rather than ideas, require substantial coverage about the word or term, rather than the idea that that word or term expresses. Sources that do provide that sort of information (e..g, a putative "An Illustrated History of the term 'baby-killer') would provide that coverage, and while I didn't see any, it's possible that I've missed something, so additional sources that do discuss the term, it's history, and so forth, are welcome as always. --joe deckertalk to me 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the article is quite in flux, it's more than trebled in size since I made this the above comment. Will reevaluate when it's settled down. --joe deckertalk to me 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirm my vote as of reading the article at this point, again, based on the policy WP:NOTDICT. That policy bears repeated reading as a whole to make sense of, but at its essence is an idea repeated many times within that policy document, e.g., To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. Addressing the seven sources, I find:
    1. The On the Media source is entirely on-point, and is an appropriate reference that goes towards notability here.
    2. The Vietnam War source misses the point, failing where our policy states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That policy is at the core of my complaints with this and following citations. This source provides three usages, but no significant analysis or in-depth coverage of the term.
    3. Great Expectorations contains two uses of the term in quotations but no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.
    4. Salon article, ditto. A couple references, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself,.
    5. Killing Babies in America: Confuses a generic term "baby killer", with a nickname "Tiller the Baby Killer", which, for an article about a word rather than an idea is inappropriate. In any case, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.
    6. Dr. Tiller Abortion.... : Does not use the term at all.
    7. NYT: 1 usage, no analysis or coverage.
    As such, I do not find that at present the article current has sufficient sources to establish notability under the WP:GNG, and the article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'll add that in my experience it has been typical here at AfD in evaluating WP:NOTDICT claims to require significantly more than two on-point sources to demonstrate notability. Another independent source or two like the first, though, and I'd reconsider. --joe deckertalk to me 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it on the history of the usage of term and only the opening line is a definition. It most certainly isn't a neologism if the article points out usage from over 100 years ago. Neologism literally means "new word", maybe it was new 100 years ago, but not now. It also isn't a "synthesis" as the nominator states, there is no new conclusion that isn't already in the sources. If the article was to conclude that baby killers are happy people or baby killers are sad people, that would be a synthesized conclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as a POV content fork--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page. Lots of things to point to that are called "baby killer". 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other Wikipedia articles to disambiguate, there is a song called "baby killer" but it doesn't have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"baby killer" is a nickname for many things. Hence, a disambiguation page can be built. Such as the zeppelin bombers used in WWI over London. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the Germans were called "baby killers" after the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby not the zeppelins. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The zeppelins were called "baby killers" [1][2][3] -- 65.95.15.144 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article content has no cohesion; it is only a patchwork of various usages of the phrase. The phrase itself does not mean the same thing at each use. Telling history means telling a story and there is no story to tell here,no arc of development, no conflict, no resolution. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your critique may be true on my writing style, it doesn't argue any valid Wikipedia rule for deletion based either on notability of verifiability. WP:GNG states clearly: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a topic. If it were a topic, it would not be a patchwork mess. It is a pair of words that have been used for this, for that, for a bunch of meanings. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am still not following your logic. Your words are a critique of my writing style. All you did was pick out a word from the definition and say that wasn't met without really explaining. "Baby killer" is an epithet, I do not see how it has multiple meanings other than a "killer of babies", and even if it did have multiple meanings there is not Wikipedia rule that disallows articles on the meaning and usage of words and phrases with multiple meanings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then list me under WP:NOTDICT. There is no possible way for anyone to write this as an article, a clearly defined topic. It's not your writing that is a problem, it is the fact that "baby killer" cannot be stated clearly as an encyclopedia topic. The best that can be done is to list the various times the two words have been used together, which is what you've accomplished. That's not good enough to save it. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if it was a satisfactory topic for Brooke Gladstone and her On The Media show, then it has enough "cohesion" for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One source does not an encyclopedia topic make. If you can find more sources, then the phrase might be suitable for an article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption of notability requires significant coverage, not merely the attestation of instances in which the word was used. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? People would look it up to see the history of the usage of the term, just like any other English phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Wikipedia doesn't do "the history and usage of [terms]" unless the term is substantially notable as a term (e.g. Truthiness), and even then such articles are likely to be nominated for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (3rd nomination)). Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of these early sources trace the arc of a story? No, they do not. There are just various places and times and usages which do not relate at all to one another. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, add them. Make it more cohesive and more of a narrative, I lack the skill. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...doesn't work that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make a narrative up out of nothing? Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — As shown above, the phrase doesn't have a notable, distinctive characteristic that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. It is simply too widely used, in too many unrelated situations, just like most other simple terms. We don't have articles on common terms like "card carrying member of"; "a deal breaker"; "Rabble rouser"; etc., even though we can find thousands of sourced examples of their use through history. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, scholarly reference works exist such as Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable for the origins and usage of phrases, and of course we have the On The Media broadcast that shows a history of the usage of this phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, we don't have articles about most of the entries in Brewer. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and the OTM broadcast you mention most certainly does not give us a history of the usage of the phrase. It gives us only a few examples of public usage of the phrase, mostly inaccurate usage as an inflammatory term of disparagement against military, political and ideological opponents. It may raise eyebrows when uttered by public individuals or in public settings, as would calling someone a "wife beater" or saying "fuck you" -- but we don't give such common invectives a Wikipedia article. At best, it would get a disambig page, but as Binksternet began to demonstrate, that page would likely become very lengthy, unfocused and basically useless. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a list or delete  The topic "Baby killer" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the six definitions given at Wiktionary blurred together.  The definition given here for the term is not sourced.  Propose to change the article to be a list of sourced cases where people have used the phrase, that seems to be what is notable.  That removes the POV problems as well as the lack of a definition.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two ideas are related.  How would the dab page be better?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A dab page would only point to concepts that exist as articles or as sections of articles on Wikipedia. A list has no such restriction. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_killer&oldid=417374778"