Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warnock's dilemma (2nd nomination)

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. sufficient consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warnock's dilemma[edit]

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

This expression may have enjoyed some limited fame in Internet forums but didn't rise to the notability of a Godwin's law. A previous AfD was closed as Keep despite poor sourcing. In the current article version, four sources are from the same book, which is itself not particularly notable. Another argument for lack of adoption: the page is quasi orphaned, being only linked from the "See also" section of Internet forum page, which means that nobody in the history of editing Wikipedia's vast coverage of the world's information and culture ever thought of linking to this concept. Deletion proposed. Failing consensus to delete, it might be, as a last resort, condensed into a paragraph and merged to Internet forum. — JFG ^talk 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal:: It looks that the consensus is a weak keep, with little leeway to expand, as the expression never made it into general culture. Therefore I suggest to merge the contents into Internet forum, which is the only page that links here. Can we get consensus on that? — JFG ^talk 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Weak keep? I see a snow keep for inclusion. Also WP:GNG does not require expressions to make it to "general culture" whatever the hell that means, only significant coverage from secondary sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reason listed in prior AfD. I've found numerous secondary sources which covers the subject significantly. Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, Say Everything: How Blogging Began, What It's Becoming, and Why It Matters and Environmental Ethics: An Introduction with Readings. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is by no means significant coverage: The first book has a half-page about it, the second one only mentions it in passing, and the Environmental Ethics book quotes a totally unrelated Mr. Warnock in 1971 about the Prisoner's dilemma. — JFG ^talk 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half a page is clearly significant coverage by WP standards. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half a page in the memoirs of Nelson Mandela might deserve a mention (although perhaps not a full article). Half a page in an unremarkable marketing book does not, even by admittedly loose inclusionist WP practices. This case is merely an ITEXISTS argument. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kind of a borderline case between notable and a dictionary definition. But I'd say it's serious and worthwhile enough to keep. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh.. It's notable, however it's not technically a dilemma. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, although this could be better, it's enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 April 2016 (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.