Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropping out (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. J04n(talk page) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping out[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This term is better off left to dictionaries. Extensive references "prove" that certain people belong there. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY to these individuals listed for some incomprehensible reason. While high school drop outs may be a problem, these should be discussed under "Education in X" articles, not here by individual. Seems like WP:COATRACK. Being extended to non-high school dropouts. Definition allows lists to continue indefinitely to include anybody and anything. This article does not provide useful information and is, at best, an almanac. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been expanded upon substantially and thoroughly sourced since the first AfD resulted in a 'keep' closure. It is well beyond a dictionary definition, contains 49 sources, and has several external links that further discuss and expand upon the phenomenon. I'm not sure how this article is a WP:COATRACK for any other article? I understand that you have taken issue with this article in the past, however saying that it needs to be deleted as it "does not provide useful information" appears to be more a matter of opinion than grounded in any policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are WP:COATRACK sources, meant to add yet another "notable" to a lengthy list, not to justify the article itself. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources are COATRACK"? I don't think you understand what that essay (and it is an essay by the way) states. In articles about specific subjects, cities, universities, it is common to list notable residents, alumni, or examples of the topic. I know that the page as it currently exists is not in the format in which you would like to see it, as evidenced by the talk page, however deleting it under the argument that it is a coatrack is not the way to affect the changes you desire. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term isn't much more than a dicdef at first glance, but it is more. The article is properly referenced and the list of notable drop outs adds credibility to the article as well. The term is more than a 'word', it is a topic of discussion, of contention, and a method of measuring the success or failure of schools or programs. Could use a little more content, but it would appear it belongs at Wikipedia for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The definition is sloppy, allowing for the inclusion of any and all groups as the next commenter mentions. This is why Wikipedia should not be a dictionary. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if content not relating to school dropouts is removed; otherwise it's a glorified dicdef, but it could be developed into an article on dropping out of school. It would need to cite background and analysis and so forth, though, and not be just a list of dropouts. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea of dropping out was part of a sociological movement as in turn on, tune in, drop out.--Penbat (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes. Cute. But not really the gist of the article. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isnt the core meaning but still an important dimension.--Penbat (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is real meat to the concept of "dropping out", distinguishing it from topics worthy only of dictionary entries. Skomorokh 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meat? Huh? There's nothing here but a vague definition and a list. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a dictionary definition. An encyclopedia article would be about leaving school early, (School leaving age for example), and those issue, or other similar things. This article, despite claims it's been improved above, is nothing more than a long dictionary definition with a list of people who left school early. Why do we have this obsession to duplicate topics under slightly different names? It creates more work, creates more opportunity for inaccuracy, and makes it harder for people to find relevant information. This is a great example of that effect in progress. If there's anything relevant here (maybe the list of drop-outs, but i question that separately) then merge it into a relevant article that talks about a subject, not a word. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be addressing the current state of the article and not the viability of the topic at hand, and thus rather misses the point of the discussion. Skomorokh 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I addressed that point. We have articles that deal with that particular subject. Did you read my extended reasoning above? As much as you might wish otherwise, this is articles for deletion, not ideas for deletion, or article names for deletion, or even subjects for deletion. I'd like to improve the quality of this encyclopedia and in some cases, this is a great example of that, improving an encyclopedia doesn't mean upping its page count by one. If you'd like to go back and read my explanation I'd appreciate that; and if you have a response considering my explanation, then I appreciate that and I'll respond accordingly. But I don' really think your answer even remotely addresses the underlying issues here, and it betrays a certain ambivalence about a quality that I think is important. I'd hope you address that, instead of me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unresearched time-wasting AfD with false policy citations. COATRACK does not apply here, NOTDIC does not apply here because it is a sociological phenomenon. It is a topic with enough academic studies [1] The article is expanded with enough source, and there is potential to add information from the academic studies. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Academic studies? Where are they? Vague definition and a list of whoever someone wants to throw in there. Next: Nixon, for "dropping out" of the Presidency? Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize he provided a link to some of the studies, right? Under Google Scholar. And Nixon didn't drop out, he quit/resigned. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes there are tons of academic studies relating to dropping out which makes this a clear keep. --Penbat (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness of the article overall does not make it clear that there is a difference between quiting/resigning and "dropping out." What is the difference BTW since people have started to place people leaving college and graduate school in there? Some of these people already had a viable job. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 or 3 citations to justify the traditional view of dropping out of high school - that it is not a good idea. There are 38 footnotes justifying the addtion of "notables" suggesting that dropping out might be a very good idea. That is what makes it "COATRACK." A place to insert notables, and not much real substance. One of the worst examples of "Lists" that I have seen in Wikipedia. Great almanac. Lousy for an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Alert: The nominator Student7 (talk · contribs) is now trying to canvass vote [2]. --Reference Desker (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And replying to every comment, he is getting close to bludgeoning the process. Bad form, however, I would be shocked to see the article deleted, given the broad rationales and support given it during this discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the first AFD, so I think it's unfair to criticize Student7 for informing me about this newer AFD. Vicarious (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any appearance of canvassing, it would have been more appropriate for Student7 to inform all of the editors involved in the first AfD, not just the original nominator who would be more likely to argue for deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - posh enough, well-enough cited. I do not know what policy this violates, and the comments have not clarified why it must be deleted. Vagueness or poor writing can be fixed by normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 27 April 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.