Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fratire (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 no consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fratire[edit]

Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. It appears this has come up before, early this year, and the consensus was delete, but the article was never deleted, and there's no indication either on the page or in its discussion that it was ever nominated, which makes me suspect foul play. Twin Bird (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was deleted, but it was re-created a month later. Also, note that you haven't used the AFD templates correctly. -- intgr [talk] 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I've corrected the mistake on this template to allow discussion to proceed on this Afd. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see my comment below) Delete - as non-notable neo. Same article was previously deleted by Afd — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I became aware of this debate because CactusWriter wrote to me about the possibility that this article had been re-created in February (against policy) after the January AfD. If an admin had become aware of it in February, it probably would have been speedy deleted as a G4 (repost of deleted material). But now, since it has existed since February and many editors have contributed, it probably deserves a fresh shot at AfD. I'm somewhat familiar with the Tucker Max article, and there is a sense that this area contains a bit of self-promotion. Nevertheless, the regular press coverage (or major blog coverage) that's included in the current article suggests there is a real phenomenon that might deserve coverage under some appropriate name. If 'fratire'is not the best name, can someone suggest an alternative? This is only a Weak Keep because of concern about WP:NEO, though the present article content is informative and interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources seem to be from Tucker himself. Isn't he what the genre is supposed to be about? It all seems like non notable neologism to me. --Banime (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am striking my previous delete which was based on the references to fratire being confined to a brief period of 2006 when the neologism was born and (I assumed) died. However, on a further search, I find continuing references to it in many university newspapers such as here and here as well as this recent editorial in the New Statesmen. Commercial sites like Amazon.com which use it as a category and trendy blog portals like Gawker.com define a section with the term. I haven't checked JSTOR, but I suspect there are a few scholarly papers written in the journals. Most articles still use quotes around fratire indicating a lack of standard acceptance, and the entire fratire genre may soon die the death of the typical trendy cliche -- but at the moment, there does appear to be enough discussion about it to warrant keeping this article. CactusWriter | ^needles 05:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I turned down the {{g4}} deletion because the references cited suggested the term meeting the threshhold of multiple nontrivial coverages in reliable sources. I see the reluctant usage by some writers in the press, but that reluctance could simply be their somewhat ambivalent feelings towards the term as it could be their suspicions that it might not be a valid concept outside of its originator(s). However, that might be considered original reasearch, my attempting to decipher the intentions of writers. The term redneck has had its popular meaning revised and/or altered due in no small part to comedians such as Jeff Foxworthy's skits, so deliberate introduction or redefining of a word by a writer of any sort causing wider usage is outside the discretion of notability. (Hope that makes sense.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I believe I created this article a while back. I hate to do this but the assertion that most of the sources are from Tucker is just plain false. And I think again, a literary genre that premieres on the front of the New York Times Style section seems like an obvious candidate for a wikipedia page to me. Metrosexual isn't exactly a current trend but it's page still exists and rightly so. It currently has 9 sources (plus the additional ones that Cactus added) including Time Magazine, NYT, and a series of pieces from the Huffington Post. For those of you asking for deletion, what else do you feel that this article would nee? TheRegicider (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.i dont think this is a notable genre just because it's mentioned in the nytimes in one time. the huffington post is the other site that mentions fratire, but that's not a reliable source. sounds just like a vanity moniker for 3 or 4 barely notable authors Theserialcomma (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Huffington Post is considered a leading news source for political commentary and reliable for editorial content - for which the article uses it as a reference. Besides the NY times, the article also contains commentary from The Guardian/Observer, National Public Radio, the Financial Times, the New Statesman and further reading in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable little neologism with no significant track record as yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 17 September 2008 (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.