Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral example

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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moral example[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTDICT/WP:SYNTH, no evidence from scholarly literature that this is used systematically as a term rather than just being a common figure of speech, all of the results on scholar seem to be using it in a more general sense. - car chasm (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. - car chasm (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and poorly written, and a quick search doesn't find any usage of it as its own thing. I did find this article which either the article was plagiarized from or plagiarized from it. But it doesn't seem like a reliable source in any case. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a WP:CV issue, we should WP:CSD it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob keep - whilst I agree that the page isn't much more than a few ideas in a stub, I'm not sure I agree that RS showing notability do not exist. There are, for example, sources in Christian theology discussing the concept 1, sources discussing the status of Nazi resisters in Germany 2 the use of Russian classics 3 and so on. My only hesitation is the extent to which these ideas have much commonality with regard to the core concept. JMWt (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable subject, pages of Scholar hits. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while a lot of the Google Scholar results are just using it as a phrase and don't rise above WP:DICDEF, there's enough that address it as a concept, such as [1], [2], [3] to meet notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 7 June 2023 (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.