Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd girl


 * 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. Removing all the original research will practically strip the article down to nothing. No prejudice against recreation with multiple reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nerd girl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is pure original research, with an (un)healthy dose of opinion and lack of sources thrown in. It's been in that state since it was created in 2005. It's not being improved; it's festering. To borrow from the talk page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not TV Tropes. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nerd. I added cited stuff there regarding nerd girls. I'll see if there are more sources out there to make a decent section.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody have access to “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls Language in Society (1999), 28 : 203-223 Cambridge University Press (doi:10.1017/S0047404599002043)? We might some good material there.-- Lenticel  ( talk ) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - been here since 2005? Go go go.. Was probably created as a joke Dvmedis (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, I don't think it was a joke, just someone's pet theory they wrote an article on. The article would be perfectly appropriate on a site like TV Tropes, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete then redirect per Lenticel. Too heavy on the OR and the opinionating to be saved. Artw (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need to merge: there's nothing here worth saving. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete original research  Chzz  ►  01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lenticel has the right idea. Xe merely has the wrong source.  There are plenty.  Try this one for starters:
 * As you can see, this is not a "pet theory". It's something that has been the object of serious analysis.  This article doesn't reflect that analysis.  Indeed, it doesn't even mention any of the examples of this character as the outright lead character in a movie that Shary gives: She's Out of Control, She's All That, and Welcome to the Dollhouse.  But we solve that with proper writing.  As I said, Lenticel has the right idea.  Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see, this is not a "pet theory". It's something that has been the object of serious analysis.  This article doesn't reflect that analysis.  Indeed, it doesn't even mention any of the examples of this character as the outright lead character in a movie that Shary gives: She's Out of Control, She's All That, and Welcome to the Dollhouse.  But we solve that with proper writing.  As I said, Lenticel has the right idea.  Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a matter of principle. This is a clearly noteable archetype of modern fiction, given that it seems to be in half the TV shows made nowadays, and somewhat distinct from the male "Nerd." Redirect is not a solution unless there's a new section added to Nerd regarding nerds in popular culture. Geek may help, as there is some conceptual crossover. Either way I am very strongly in favour of preserving the information in some way. Not being fixed yet and having a random selection of tags isn't a valid reason. Anyway the format's clearly not yet encyclopedic so it should have been tagged with Template:Cleanup instead of the frankly baffling POV tag. How are the people who like to do cleanup gonna find it?  RayBarker (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you just collapsed the bullet-pointed text into regular prose and Stipped out the massive list of examples(perhaps mentioning one or two in the intro text) the article would be nearly on a par with the "Characteristics" section of the Nerd article, which is also somewhat light on references. RayBarker (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article is terribly written, contains zero third-party sources, and seems to be all one person's essay/"original research." Even the header term "Nerd Girl" is debatable as being the defining terminology. More appropriate would be to add something well written and researched to an article on feminism and pop-culture. Deadchildstar (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Exemplifies original research. --EEMIV (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.