Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unpopularity

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopularity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This might be too bold, but I do not see what purpose this article serves. It is written like a sociology essay, and does not provide encyclopedic content. It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condense to what is non-essayish and merge and redirect to popularity. The effects of the absence of something are still a reflection on the nature of that thing. bd2412 T 21:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect or delete (for the reasons noted already). -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist #1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is certainly bold as it's the first time I've seen the complaint that "It is excessively long, and essentially imparts only a dictionary definition", which seems to be self-contradictory. The complaint that it's "like a sociology essay" seems rather different and is bizarre too, because that's the type of content we'd expect for this topic. Finally the claim that it "does not provide encyclopedic content" is empty per WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. So, there doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. My impression is the nominator is expecting something else or something more but they don't say what that is and they don't seem to have made any effort to improve the article themself.

Merger might be feasible but we're here to decide on the question of deletion and AFD is not cleanup. The proposed target of Popularity is over 30K and so it's reasonable to split the topic per WP:SIZE. Unpopularity is certainly a thing in its own right, rather than simply an absence or negation, because it has clear and distinct effects such as social rejection and bullying. I was looking at some talks by Jordan Peterson recently because he's in the news. In one, he made the point that the most important thing for parents to do is to socialise their infants by the age of four because otherwise they will be rejected by other children and this will then ruin their life. The page in question currently seems to focus on adolescents rather than infants so this indicates that's there's good scope for expansion.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to popularity. It also makes no sense why an article about a broad topic focuses on such a specific area of the topic (ie. popularity among adolescents). Maybe some of the content would be better suited for an article such as Interpersonal relationship.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this next example is a terrible and ancient AfD discussion, but popularity was once nominated for deletion and was kept: [1] I'm not sure how unpopularity is any different. Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED and all that, but it's been the subject of academic research in a very similar way to its sister article. I'd keep and rework. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Massive academical sources coverage.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.