Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociofact

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociofact[edit]

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

Per WP: Not a dictionary St8fan (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term was coined in the 1950s, and a Google Book search shows that this term has been discussed and analyzed many times in sociological literature for nearly six decades. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP: Not a dictionary. Warden (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the my google searches don't turn up anything that allows me to give this any history or context. The book results seems similar as they seem only to define the termSt8fan (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Value of Sociofact Analysis for Business Agility seems to be a good detailed source. Warden (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: definition/etymology-only (i.e. WP:DICTDEF) of an infrequently used term (essentially a failed neologism). No indication of "significant coverage" (as opposed to mere rare usage, or definition). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DICDEF of a term coined by one person and not covered directly and in detail by secondary sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User talk:TreasuryTag. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found one apparently independent, reliable secondary source, and I added it (along with a statement citing it) to the article just now. I'm not going to try to argue that this one source is sufficient to save this article, but please at least be aware of it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Julian Huxley. There is no harm in sending people to the one place where the word is used. The word can be added to Wiktionary if people think it is important. In related news, Mentifact should probably be treated similarly. --Djohns21 (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Cullen has it right here — this term, as is the case with Mentifact, originated six decades ago and has gained currency among sociologists as a cursory perusal of Google indicates. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the concept being slung by Francis Celoria in AN INTRODUCTION TO A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1992 BY ROUTLEDGE. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Hansen makes use of the concept in ANOTHER BOOK, this published in 2001. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders and Becker take a more introductory approach to the idea in A 1956 BOOK, Societies Around the World. And so on... Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So here's the question: is this a dictionary definition of a word which is of itself insufficient for treatment as an article? Or is this a stub of an article on a fundamental concept of sociology? I'm advocating Keep based on my perception that it is the latter. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't know if this concept is fundamental to sociology, but it's certainly widely employed. See e.g. over 150 hits on google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sociofact&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 . The article is short but improvable, and the concept seems rich enough that an improved article would be far more than a dictionary definition. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As I'm reading over the sources in this AfD, and 150+ found in Google Scholar, I am having trouble extracting the meaning of the word as it is used in the context of these articles. I am concerned about whether it means the same thing as Huxley's original definition in the 1950s. The fact that the term is used is sociology is clear enough, but whether these sources could actually be used to provide any meaningful information about this subject is questionable to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Point taken. I meant the sources to establish notability rather than as potential references for the article itself. I think that the fact that they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it as Huxley meant shows that the article belongs here, and has at least the potential to be more than just a definition of the word, as it seems from the literature to be a complex concept. I also think that this is a reason not to redirect the article to Julian Huxley, as proposed above. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if sources neither cover the topic in sufficient depth to allow us to ascertain "the meaning of the word" nor to act as "potential references for the article itself", then how can they have sufficient depth to confer notability? I would have thought that the former would be a prerequisite for the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attempt at answer it seems to me that this would happen with any term of art. most of the references using it would be written and read by people who know what it means, and thus would not define it. the bare fact that there are a lot of them and that they're reliable, authoritative sources would establish the notability of the concept. i would hazard a guess that totalitarianism (I just happen to be reading Eichmann in Jerusalem) or myocardial infarction, to pick two fairly random examples, would be like this. most sources that use the terms wouldn't define them, but the fact that they're used a lot by the right people establishes notability and the fact that one can't divine the definition from the sources establishes encyclopedicity. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:Notability requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Mere usage is not significant coverage and so does not establish notability (whether the people so using are the right, wrong or left people). I would suggest that large numbers of books have been written specifically on the subject of 'totalitarianism' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and a large number of medical journal articles and textbook chapters have been written specifically on the subject of 'myocardial infarction' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:53, 3 August 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.