Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute Beginner

Add links
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beginner (band). ansh666 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Beginner[edit]

Absolute Beginner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Noticed this when someone re-added a link from Incel to this article (Incel/involuntary celibacy has had to be salted in multiple locations after it was repeatedly recreated). This appears to be nearly the same concept, although to be clear I don't have reason to believe that this page was created to get around the salt. This is an issue for WP:NOTURBANDICT (i.e. there are a lot of terms for a virgin, virginity, or sexual inexperience, and that's what dictionaries are for). It's a term about a concept we already cover. It's possible it could be mentioned at somewhere like virginity or celibacy but it's unclear the sources would justify inclusion in those large topics. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If you took a look at Category:Words and phrases by language you'd see that there is a precedent for that. Furthermore, a word that has been in usage since the 1990s is not necessarily a neologism. Even if it is a neologism, there are literally thousands of neologisms on Wikipedia which are fully fledged articles. Are we going to suggest deleting them all? probably not. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But Other Stuff! is not a valid argument to make. Other neologism articles contain quality citations to support notability. This nonsense does not. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to try hard to respond to what your correspondent actually said, or meant to say. I think 92's main point is that no term that has been in use for decades should be called a neologism, as "neo" means new, and the term should really only be applied to words or phrases that are actually new. Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to the IP user in precisely the manner necessary to rebut the silly assertion, it isn't my problem that you can't understand it. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the phrase "absolute beginners" while adding "liebe" (liebe is German for love) yields 212 results; in the plural you get 229 results for a total of nearly 430 German news results. There is a distinct blog on the issue [1], and there are literally hundreds of vlogs of ordinary German citizens describing their relationship status under that term on video-sharing websites such as Youtube. Since I'm not proficient in German I could not refine my search effectively to yield more results so I imagine a native German would be able to establish this article's notability more easily. Besides, this is just about the only article that exists on sexuality in Germany. It seems more logical to expand our coverage rather than leave sexuality in Germany blank. I also disagree with Pontificalibus' delete rationale since English sourcing is not a requirement for contributing to English mainspace; better for him to suggest a change to Wikipedia guidelines rather than to argue that mute point here. Furthermore, the article has been monitored and reviewed by at least half a dozen German-language Wikipedia administrators on the German version since 2005, so I doubt they would let an obscure term slide like that, furthermore bosltering my perception of this article as meeting notability criteria. Also, the term has an abbreviation: AB. Usually terms only get abbreviations or acronyms whenn they are established as notable and widely used terms in an effort to save time due to being oft-repeated. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs and vlogs do not count when evaluating sources for questions of notability. TheValeyard (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah! Woah! Woah!

      A blanket dismissal of "blogs", without recognizing truly notable blogs, is not responsible. 99.x percent of blogs are non-notable, and exist in well-deserved obscurity. But there are hundreds of online publications, that are called blogs, that are at least as notable as print newspapers. I repeat, to give a blanket dismissal of "blogs", without explicitly recognizing that a large fraction of the blogs we have all actually heard of do completely measure up to the criteria we expect of WP:Reliable sources.

      Scotusblog is a good example. I have seen poorly informed contributors give it a routine dismissal, as "just a blog", even though well respected newspapers reporters on legal matters routinely cite its articles. We consider those reporters RS, so we should respect the sources they respect, even if its name contains the term "blog".

      If it has never occurred to you that the "blogs" we are most likely to have heard of are the ones most likely to measure up to our criteria for being considered RS, then please consider this now, and never denounce "blogs" again, without an explicit disclaimer.

      If you plan to continue to denounce all so-called blogs, even Scotusblog, and its clearly reliable peers, I will share my general experience that it seems to me that those who dismiss online sources as mere blogs, even when they are clearly reliable, often raise concerns that they are trying to push a clandestine POV. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swan, that is entirely irrelevant as the blogs we are talking about here are well within the "99.x" range you yourself cite. Don't waste time with strawmen again, please. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yard, not irrelevant, as you started off with the big mistake of conflating all blogs -- a potentially disruptive position to take. You seem prepared to continue to tout this misleading conflation.

As for your strawman crack -- sheesh. I haven't taken a position for retention or deletion fo this article, so how could it possibly be meaningful to accuse me adopting a strawman position? Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point, which is sailing right over your head, is that my statement that is correct in 99.9% of situations, i.e. this situation. It's sad that you have to resort to hammering this afd so early in it's run, but you gotta go with what you're good at, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. I know that. I never described vlogs/blogs as sources. I merely mentioned them in response to insinuations that AB is non-existent. There are lots of reliable German news sources such as T-Online [2], Badische Zeitung [3] that use it. Furthermore, AB's not onely have a presence online but even have self-help groups. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duh (I can do that too). Merely existing does not equal "notable", that is the point of not using blogs as sources. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under no instance should this be the main entry under Absolute Beginner. IF there is sufficient coverage of the concept within German sources (and not merely something used a few times in blogs) to meet the requirements for a stand alone page, it would need to be under a disambiguation title like: Absolute beginner (German sexual neologism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment In most references you can find online, Absolute Beginners are not merely mentioned in passing in the source; rather it is the main topic of discussion. This would make it notable. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge' - should be around 3-4 sentences at most in virginity article, as about 90% of the article is relevant to that topic generally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Furthermore, I tried to verify two of the „sourced“ statements by reading the given sources, the two turned out to be unfounded. Maybe someone should go over all the statements resp. sources.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect target--??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any suggestions for redirect targets other than Beginner (band), who used to be called "Absolute Beginner" when they started out. —Kusma (t·c) 06:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma:--See CasLiber's and Davidica's !vote(s).Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a redirect to the band, provited the current article is deleted first, then the redirect created. Otherwise it will be an activist magnet. TheValeyard (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Absolute_Beginner&oldid=1137535946"