Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Competent man (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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Competent man

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Competent man
• Articles for deletion/Competent man (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Competent man (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Competent man (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)

Not notable outside of Robert A. Heinlein. Consists almost entirely of the creator's own interpretations of Heinlein's works. Online, non-RS sources discuss the subject only in relation to Heinrein. The section on 'competence porn' is about an entirely different subject which may be notable, but the section as written is POV and more importantly should not be in this article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This is most definitely a thing: see [1], [2], [3] for examples. I agree that this needs more reliable sources to be cited: the last two above should be a start. The link to the closely-related concept of "competence porn" is also entirely relevant: see [4]. -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Anome. SpinningSpark 09:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:GNG as above, anyway should not have been brought here, more appropriate to have a discussion to merge with hero. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Satisfies GNG, as was pointed out at the previous AfD. James500 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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.