Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antivalentinism

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antivalentinism

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

While it seems uncontroversial that there are some people who grumble about Valentine's Day, I'm not sure there is any sort of concerted movement or even general widespread sentiment against it deserving its own article. When I edited the page on Valentine's Day, it was full of uncited and questionable lines, which I marked, and some bad jokes that I summarily removed. Since then, it seems the only edit has been to remove every line I marked as needing a citation, leaving the article disjointed and making no claims to any sort of notability. In general, I don't think the subject is worth anything more than a minor mention in the Valentine's Day article at this point, and am thus nominating it for deletion. Imban (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that this has crossed the line. I'm not really that into Valentine's Day, myself, but the use of this as a term at this point still strikes me as a neologism. Accordingly, Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for reliable sources on this topic was unsuccessful. Predictably, the term is used in a few opinion pieces and blogs, and crops up on Wikipedia mirrors and reprints. No reliable sources, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my own search backs Cullen328's observations. asnac (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2012 (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.