Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

This article has an extreme POV, and it is very unencyclopedic. It is more like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. I cannot imagine how this article could be worded so that it does not violate any policies (and WP:IAR certainly does not apply here), so it is probably best to just delete the article. If someone thinks they can write a good, neutral, and encyclopedic article on the subject, they are free to recreate it. Nat682 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per our policy on neologisms. There's no real evidence that "preacher's kid" is a real term worthy of discussion and not just a natural part of American English (i.e. actually no different from such phrases as "police officer's kid"). The article does not cover the neologism but instead is a coatrack which is used to document stereotypes of the children of clergy. --Anthem 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not sure of the value of this article at all. Most of it appears to be WP:OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and flag for rescue. The term is notable as a stereotype. People have made some effort to record sources, even if those have not been fully utilised yet, and I found this academic paper at Wayback Machine to replace the dead link. There's enough reliable material to be able revise the article into something decent. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This link isn't even a footnote. So this link is not even backing anything in the article.Curb Chain (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As of 26 June, it is now; more can be added from it, but the page is already well worth keeping. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no deadline. The previous AfD closed as a clear keep. Sources do seem to be available. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The whole article is all original research or synthesis.Curb Chain (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was certainly true, but I think that's largely fixed now. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a poor article on a legitimate topic. The article should be improved not deleted.  Its problems are well-tagged, so that when come one comes along who can deal with it, they have something to start from.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — this is bad enough that there's nothing to save, so anyone rewriting it will have to start over completely. The absence of an article at this title may be a better inducement to someone to write anew about it.  Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - the reason that there currently appears to be "nothing to save" is that on 20 June user:Curb Chain deleted citations along with a paragraph that he considered all synthesis -- perhaps it was, I haven't looked up the sources yet, but those four deleted citations might yet be useful for building a better article, along with the resources still shown at the end. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With 5,380 Google Books hits, the topic is clearly notable. The article just needs improving. As noted in the previous AfD, deletion is not a cleanup technique. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the article slightly and added several references to relevant books. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google hits do not make it notable. Google Books is not much different. --Nat682 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: those Google Books hits include a very large number of reliable sources, discussing both the sociology of the phenomenon and the role of the stereotype in literature; that makes it notable under WP:GNG. The article is currently well-referenced, with references to 7 books and some other sources, and I'm not understanding the arguments for deletion. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is nothing of real value here, most of it is based on assertions and assumptions. Any useful information would be better placed as small parts of other articles. ItsZippy (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not personally get any value out of the article, but the content is thoroughly referenced with reliable sources. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that the related German article Priesterkind has material which might be relevant. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The recent improvements in response to this AFD nomination has almost completely fixed most of the reason I cited in the deletion nomination. This improvement was done by two IP addresses who are most likely the same person using a dynamic IP address.  However, the article still has major NPOV violations, and I don't think it could be reworded to sufficiently conform to the NPOV policy; therefore, I continue to support deletion of this article.  However, this discussion has been active for fourteen days, and currently there is clearly no consensus for either side.  --Nat682 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see you have added an POV tag to the article, but neither here nor on the article talk page have you explained what the supposed NPOV violations are. There is a phenomenon (that of children of clergy) which is discussed both from outside the religious community (as sociology of religion, with considerable academic work) and within the religious community (as pastoral theology); the stereotype derived from the phenomenon is widespread in books, TV, and films (and is also discussed academically). The article incorporates all three points of view. WP:NPOV specifies "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In my view this has been done, and there is no POV bias. Accordingly, I am removing the tag. I have found no other significant views that have been published by reliable sources -- if you are aware of them, please indicate what they are. 202.124.74.154 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is now so much improved from when it was nominated that, to establish a consensus for deletion, it would be necessary to re-nominate it. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, should I close this AfD as no consensus and then re-nominate it on grounds of major NPOV violations? --Nat682 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. You have expressed that there are NPOV violations.  We will take this into account.Curb Chain (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Problems mentioned in the nomination can be (and indeed have now been) fixed by normal editing.  Eluchil404 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2011 (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.