Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern man

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. Sandstein 08:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern man[edit]

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

unreferenced 8 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I was inclined to speedily close the AfD as a procedural keep, but the process does not appear to allow this to happen as the nomination is clearly made in good faith. The reason I was tempted to close this is that the deletion rationale put forward ("unreferenced 8 years") does not meet any of the 14 reasons for deletion. There's no point editors discussing a rationale that does not allow us to delete the article. May I suggest, Kintetsubuffalo, that you thus withdraw the AfD? Alternatively, please expand on the rationale and put something forward that meets one of the 14 deletion reasons. Schwede 66 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources given in article so had a look myself. At best it seems to be a known slang phrase in New Zealand, but hits for it are sparse (the wiki entry is the top result) and vague. I cannot see how it could possibly pass WP:GNG, and falls under WP:NOTDIC. Incidentally, I don't see what the nominator's reasoning for nomination has to do with an article's notability...? El Pharao (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Listener has just gone online via a website called Noted. For New Zealand cultural terms, you wouldn't get many better sources than that magazine. I don't know whether the search term "Southern man" site:noted.co.nz works outside of New Zealand. If it does, you'll find plenty of relevant references. Schwede 66 19:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:NOTURBANDICT - GretLomborg (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD is NOT do discuss articles that need cleanup. It took less than five minutes to find several references. I'd like to suggest @Kintetsubuffalo:, @El Pharao:, and @GretLomborg: have another look. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been added, proving it meets WP:GNG. Procedural note: the 14 reasons in WP:DEL-REASON are not exhaustive, although nominators are encouraged to try and find references (WP:BEFORE). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary The phrase Southern Man strikes me as being more appropriately located within Wiktionary than Wikipedia even with all the references. I think GretLomborg has a point. NealeFamily (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness' references.-gadfium 19:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term is specific to New Zealand and not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; I might support a redirect to a more general term or to Wiktionary. The "references" are things such as beer ads [1], Youtube videos [2], and book reviews [3]. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making up Wikipedia policies. Being New Zealand-specific is not grounds for deletion, and a book review (or the book being reviewed) is an entirely reasonable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being specific to one coun try has never been a reason for deletion of an article and - unless you want to chop out more than half of Wikipedia's articles - never will be. And there is a difference between a reference beign a beer advertisement and a reference being to an encyclopedia which shows a beer advertisement as an example.Grutness...wha? 01:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grutness and Schwede66. Poor deletion rationale that is resolved now anyhow (it's now better referenced than most articles on the project). AfD isn't a place for articles that need a clean-up. Does this subject meet WP:GNG? Yes, clearly. Therefore close keep and move onto other things. -- Shudde ^talk 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG, references added just prove that Afd doesn't work all that well if you don't bother doing a google search first (or you could argue that it works very well, since the article is now very well sourced). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:46, 23 July 2017 (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.