Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defooing

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 delete. –MuZemike 06:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defooing[edit]

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

Same deal (This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.) I probably agree with this one though, in retrospect. Perhaps a redirect to Emancipation of minors? --Coin945 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just found a source relating to term that was in the New York Times: [1]. Once you click on the link, you can't find it, but take a peek at the first link on the GoogleNews page..--Coin945 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my rationale in the proposed deletion. A name-drop in one NYT article does not notability make, in-depth coverage does. There isn't anywhere near sufficient sourcing to sustain this article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I stand by my original assessment. The "sources" added to the articles are blogs, forum posts, "Ayn Rand said" and the like. None of them are reliable or demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with one real source plus a blog, this appears to be a non-notable neologism. LadyofShalott 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?--Coin945 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much say "ditto" to SeraphimBlade's comment. We need WP:reliable sources, which excludes most of what's been used in this article. LadyofShalott 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, just blogs, forums, and advocacy sites—much less the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:GNG requires. First Light (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't quite understand the proposer's statement but after having reviewed the article and its sources and looked for more, I concur with FirstLight above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this article, along with many others were nominated for deletion rather rashly. I switched the nominations so they went to AfDs instead, so the wider community could voice their opinions. This article in particular, though salvageable to some degree, is probably the least encyclopedic out of the bunch (in retrospect)--Coin945 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2011 (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.