Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Preacher's kid
Previous AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unencyclopedic, unsalvageable, tagged for more than a year with no improvement. Even a good article would only be a dicdef for a neologism, assuming this even could rise to the level of being a neologism. Was up for deletion years back, people voting didn't really give any good rationale based upon policies, and no improvements since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not cleanup; the (anonymous) nominator only lists problems and does not adequately address the potential of the article. A few seconds searching Google Books and Scholar show hundreds of reliable sources which refer to this phenomenon. the skomorokh  15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the allegation of "neologism", recorded uses of this term go back to 1942 at least, making this term older than most of the writers - and readers - of the encyclopaedia. the skomorokh  15:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per google hits make it plain to see that this topic is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Reliable resources and references need to be put in this page though as it doesn't have enough to meet notability as of this moment, but if someone cares about this article enough to fix it up, it could actually be a quite accomplishable article. Hairy  Perry  16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:GHITS alone do not make something notable, but I agree that there seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources to make something out of this. the skomorokh  16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable but needs work. Perhaps add a (subculture) qualifier as in Military brat (U.S. subculture).  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless fixed up. We should not indefinitely keep badly written content. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen plenty of worse-written content that sticks around. This could be improved, surely. But it is not so bad. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable term, needs cleanup and expansion. Certainly not a neologism, I agree it's akin to military brat. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hardly a neologism--been is use for decades. Google books show 652 entries, of which dozens are books, whether fiction,, autobio, or bio,  with this exact phrase in the title, thus showing it to be a common a readily understandable type. The phenomenon itself is discussed as a stereotype in many of them, even in the Gbooks excerpts.  A view expressed above 'that we should not  indefinitely keep badly written content" is completely unsupported by Wikipedia policy or practice.  One could argue we should not indefinitely keep unreferenced content, or content not shown to be notable, but badly written content !? DGG (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Notable subject, article needs clean-up not deletion. -- Banj e  b oi   01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Guy. There may be an article on this topic, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notion that the children of clergymen differ from others in personality, lifestyle, and religious habits is one of those stereotypes from folklore that's been kicking around for as long as I can remember.  A decent article could be written about the stereotype and folklore, and this article seems to be a workable start. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is referenced and improving as this AFD has been developed. To refute Guy's ratioanle, deletion has never been a cleanup techinque.  If the topic is notable, and the article is not BLP or other violations, then we don't simply delete because there are grammar or formatting issues. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely. This is a significant issue.  Part of the problem that the parents' ministry can result in a disputed home life where a "preacher's kid" does not receive enough attention from a parent, who also have to look after members of his congregation.  This can lead to theri children going off the rails.  This is definitely a notable topic.  The present article is perhaps not a good one, but means it should be tagged for improvement; it should certainly not be deleted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is a semi-cogent article on a notable topic with some sourcing. AFD isn't for cleanup. B figura  (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep. The St Petersburg Times article defines the problem. The Time article "Preacher's kid" does not, but its title shows that the mag expects readers to understand the term. It's a good example of the problems faced by children of notable parents ("notable" in the real word sense), and ought to be linked into a package of articles about sociological topics. I don't understand why it appears on AfD at all. --Philcha (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but flag for cleanup. Plenty of coverage in reliable, secondary sources, which is what counts. Why did you do it (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (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.