Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heroic failure

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. J04n(talk page) 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic failure[edit]

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

No independent sources for this vague concept, so the article is full of original research. None of the "examples" provided is sourced, they are simply guesses on the part of editors who are offering their own interpretation of the article's subject. I doubt this can ever be adequately sourced or rescued from its current state. Removing all the unsourced examples, and reducing this to a stub will not even work, because "heroic failure" itself is not defined with any credible source. Delete as unsalvagable OR. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good try, but does not quite establish notability with a list of examples. Borock (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--Article is referenced to two books about the concept, which also has significant ghits and Google book hits as well, including "Heroic failure in Frederick the Great" etc.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt that any of those books would be enough to establish notability, as none of them actually offer a definition of what "heroic failure" actually is. What we have here are books which use the phrase in the title or subtitle, journal articles which use the phrase, etc. All this proves is that the phrase is used without any agreed upon definition. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or possibly redirect to underdog (competition). The two are not quite the same; underdog is appropriate to describe the '69 Mets, but there's something unsettling about applying that word to, say, the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto. The article dates from the "f*** sources" days, though it's not beyond saving, and there are plenty of sources available [1]. It'll be ironic (or poetic) if someone does improve the article and then it gets deleted anyway. Mandsford 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is wrong. A heroic failure is not necessarily a person or group, it could be the action itself. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism Kuguar03 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "neo" in neologism means "new", and this one dates back to the 19th century, so it's about as new as a hoop skirt. Mandsford 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for 19th century use? Thanks. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. You're welcoome. Mandsford 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually look at what you're linking before you link it.

Kuguar03 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only when it's important to the discussion at hand. Whether it does or doesn't date back to the 19th century (or even the 20th) isn't relevant to notability. While it's not a neologism in the sense of a recently coined term, there are plenty of old terms that were never popular enough to become notable. Consensus so far is that the article hasn't established notability, no matter how far back the term goes. Mandsford 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. In my culture it is Glorious Failure but lacking references and not encyclopedic. MLA (talk) 22:33, 12 February 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.