Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonstration of Higher Value

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration of Higher Value[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. While the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to every phrase used within the community. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Average_frustrated_chump_(5th_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concepts_in_the_seduction_community_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-slut_defense. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the Seduction Community itself seems to be notable, there is no reason that every phrase or idea used in it is inherently notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussed extensively be reliable sources. Multiple pages in multiple books ([1][2][3][4][5]) and multiple mentions in multiple academic sources ([6]). WP:NEO which Kaldari cites does not apply. The page says "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term", which I am hardly doing, [7] 108k Google results are enough already. The guide says "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society", which my article does! And it is not just a word, it is a concept that admittedly could use some fleshing out. It is clear that Kaldari has a personal vendetta against the topic group. LegrisKe (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, all of those hits are either primary source uses from the seduction community or uses of the phrase as a regular English phase (rather than a specialized term). WP:NEO requires that we cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. I've only seen one legitimate secondary source on this term,[8] and I don't think you can build much of an article from that single source. If you can find more secondary sources that talk about the term or concept, please list them here. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's certainly enough secondary source coverage to warrant retention of the article page. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided by LegrisKe are a) primary, b) trivial, or c) unrelated, meaning that they cannot confer notability on this neologism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Particularly interesting secondary source coverage includes books and scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So again, primary, trivial, or unrelated. what makes you think that just citing a Google search is acceptable as a demonstration of notability? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much evidence that the term is used outside of a very small circle of writers. I don't buy the claim that the GoogleScholar search provides multiple mention in multiple academic sources. GoogleScholar documents are not necessarily academic. Case in point this is most clearly not scholarly work. Nor are the two frivolous patent applications. That already accounts for 5 out of 13 hits. I think we can also agree that the self-help books by seduction gurus don't qualify as academic work. So we're left with three documents. In this one, the term is only used once and only to quote Strauss. In this one, there's a single occurrence of the term and again it's only used to say basically "Strauss described the concept of demonstration of higher value". The last one is Faye Flam's book which I can't access in its entirety. However, the occurrences of the term that I can see are of the form "book by seduction guru foo uses the term demonstration of higher value". That shouldn't be confused with wide acceptance of the term as a useful neologism. You can't review or discuss Liberal Fascism without using the neologism "liberal fascism". And given the popularity of that book, you'll find gazillions of references to it, including in scholarly work that mentions Goldberg's work. But that does not make "liberal fascism" an accepted neologism with a reasonably well-accepted definition. I have to agree with Roscelese's assessment and I urge Cirt and LegrisKe to reexamine the quality of these sources. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Pickup artist. A peculiar topic, but is has received press. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I could live with a merge, I do have to ask: what press? Outside of the seduction gurus books and websites, I see little if any coverage of significant depth. I've already analyzed the Google Scholar hits above. Among the top Google hits, you find seduction community websites, blogs, forums, things like this where the term is used in a completely different way. An article on Demonstration of Higher Value is the equivalent of a Wikipedia article called "Verifiability, not truth". Pichpich (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I still don't see any evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Much better established neologisms than this are routinely deleted from Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tertiary book sources: [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above regarding Flam's book. But the first tertiary source you just gave is a book by the guy who defined the term. It doesn't get more primary than that. Pichpich (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your 2 links is primary, the second is a legitimate secondary source, but like I said above, it seems to be the only one found so far. Kaldari (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a part of the Seduction community or Pickup artist articles, but there's no reason this is an independently notable topic that needs to be handled separately. Shadowjams (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No need or justification for a standalone article. Wikipedia is not a how-to. ^Bongo_matic 04:29, 12 November 2011 (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.