Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Uprising: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) closing |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was :I've speedy deleted this. It is based on the BBC and a couple of other outlets mentioning in passing that one or more posters on a message board used this phrase. We would need secondary sources to show that Wikipedia was following the sources and not leading. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Beta Uprising]]=== |
===[[Beta Uprising]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} |
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} |
||
| Line 14: | Line 22: | ||
:I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not ''really'' just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there ''is'' a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are ''always'' subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for. |
:I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not ''really'' just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there ''is'' a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are ''always'' subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for. |
||
:I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) |
:I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{clear}} |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|||
Revision as of 20:06, 3 October 2015
- 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 :I've speedy deleted this. It is based on the BBC and a couple of other outlets mentioning in passing that one or more posters on a message board used this phrase. We would need secondary sources to show that Wikipedia was following the sources and not leading. Sarah (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Beta Uprising
- Beta Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A single mention on the BBC site doesn't make a meme a 'thing'. EamonnPKeane (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@EamonnPKeane: maybe not, but 5500 mentions on the /r9k/ board in the year before the UCC shooting should merit some attention. --71.179.209.137 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: e.g. this, this and this. --Rubbish computer 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The meme doesn't come from BBC; I'm not sure if it comes from 4chan but they are known for promoting it. See [1] for another mention (there are a number of articles about this 'threat', though there is no actual mention of violence).
- I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not really just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there is a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are always subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for.
- I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (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.