Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic virtue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic virtue[edit]
Meaningless cant that has no context, source or justifiable premise. Delete. Eddie.willers 20:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as neologism that has been tagged for cleanup the last 6 months with no action.--Isotope23 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google shows it to have a fair amount of currency among academicians, and it is a term I've heard before. While the article needs expansion, it is comprehensible. And since when does any article have to satisfy "justifiable premise" (and what the heck is that anyway?) Denni☯ 05:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe if it was cleaned up and sourced, but it's been on cleanup for too long to be given the benefit of the doubt. "AfD is not cleanup" works both ways. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and "first seen around the time of the American Revolution"? I don't think so. "Ug go hunt, woman stay in cave and clean loincloth" is as old as man, surely. --Last Malthusian 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- N.B. I'm not basing my vote on the fact that I disagree with the article; perhaps the author meant that the American revolution was the first time that for a woman to stay at home was seen as a virtue and not just a role assigned to them by nature (though I disagree with that as much as my first reading). But it appears to be Americentrism, which is one of many possible symptoms of POV posts masquerading as encyclopaedia articles, as here. --Last Malthusian 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been significantly expanded. Please take a look at it. Denni☯ 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the effort, it's certainly a significant improvement, but I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced as to the article's worth. There may be sources now, but it still looks like original research in the form of an essay - a sequence of quotes with alternating viewpoints. My vote stands, though I'll be watching for further improvements with interest. --Last Malthusian 08:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what else you expect. It's not original research, as I'm not proposing anything myself. It is all taken from credible sources, and demonstrates that the term is not a neologism (original concern). Denni☯ 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't believe that your quotes do any such thing. Only two of them use the term 'domestic virtue' in the quote itself, and neither of them use it in the sense defined in the first paragraph. They appear to mean "a family's virtue", rather than anything specifically to do with the virtue of women staying at home. And even if they did use the article's meaning, evidence that one or two people used the term doesn't really lift the word above neologism status: we regularly delete neologisms used by one or two blog authors. I don't believe the fact that the sources are old makes the term any more noteworthy. --Last Malthusian 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Last Malthusian... the usage isn't really clear from these examples; it appears the authors are using the term to mean different things.--Isotope23 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't believe that your quotes do any such thing. Only two of them use the term 'domestic virtue' in the quote itself, and neither of them use it in the sense defined in the first paragraph. They appear to mean "a family's virtue", rather than anything specifically to do with the virtue of women staying at home. And even if they did use the article's meaning, evidence that one or two people used the term doesn't really lift the word above neologism status: we regularly delete neologisms used by one or two blog authors. I don't believe the fact that the sources are old makes the term any more noteworthy. --Last Malthusian 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what else you expect. It's not original research, as I'm not proposing anything myself. It is all taken from credible sources, and demonstrates that the term is not a neologism (original concern). Denni☯ 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the effort, it's certainly a significant improvement, but I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced as to the article's worth. There may be sources now, but it still looks like original research in the form of an essay - a sequence of quotes with alternating viewpoints. My vote stands, though I'll be watching for further improvements with interest. --Last Malthusian 08:36, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.