Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-ism (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 kept. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-ism[edit]

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

In July 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-ism closed as delete. For some reason the page was not deleted as such; it was replaced with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. From December 2009 the page sort of grew into a DAB page, as various editors tacked 'See also' internal links under the soft redirect template. For a while the name redirected to Glossary of philosophy, then in 2011 the redirect was replaced by a DAB page. The current content is one of those odd half-DAB pages that combines definitions, internal links, and mentions of books or other ideas not currently treated on Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history clarification - It was deleted on July 27th, 2009 following the AfD by the closer. It was recreated as a soft wiktionary redirect on August 23rd, 2009. At some later point in December 2009, another admin restored the deleted revisions that were hidden under the soft redirect. What happened after is laid out in the nom: editors added "See also" links, then it redirected to Glossary of philosophy, then was turnd into an actual DAB only to become what it now is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination does not advance an argument for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a very small number of vocabulary/dictionary definition topics that pass muster in terms of GNG, but this is one of them. So-called "Isms" are a subject of scrutiny as a concrete subject — this was particularly true during the years of the Cold War. Carrite (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am certainly open to WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles, but the four books currently mentioned on this page don't appear to treat the suffix -ism in its own right. Descriptions I can find of the books describe them as follows: "theoretical and practical aspects of the major political and economic ideologies" (Todays ISMS); "lists them [453 Difficult Doctrines] all, and explains their salient features" (Isms and Ologies); "pocket-sized guide for gallery and museum lovers" (Isms: Understanding Art); and "brief definitions of key terms in philosophy" (The Ism Book). I'm not aware of substantial work on -ism as a suffix, not withstanding its use as a (often tongue-in-cheek) label for groups of theories or ideas in various fields. I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be constructed on this topic without substantial WP:SYNTHESIS. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reasonable for an article as is, and more refs can be looked for. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was happy this article was here. just the "marked for deletion" thing was a bit off-putting. there's also the Dog eat dog track/album referring to Isms: http://www.discogs.com/Dog-Eat-Dog-Isms/master/28436 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.40.41 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2014 (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.