Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privileged child


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Privileged child

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a personal essay, full of original research. It would be very difficult to verify this, and there is not one reference. On the talk page the author said that she wrote this page when new to Wikipedia, and admits that it has its weaknesses. It could potentially be an encyclopedic topic, but as I have said it fails WP:A to the extreme. If this article goes down the plughole, then I'll consider nominating popular girl as another apparent attempt to expand a dictionary definition.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to agree - it's original research and the tone's all wrong. GracieLizzie, if you're particularly fond of this text why don't you copy it to your userspace and keep it there? BTLizard 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * redirect to Stock character unless this article can be sourced. Given the articles in Category:Stock characters there's precedent for including articles on a topic like this, but this one is unsourced. --W.marsh 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per what Seiver and BTLizard said. --Millard73 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I honestly think this could potentially be an encyclopedic topic if sources exist, but it really does fail attribution badly and seems like it would be difficult to source. The term "privileged child" yields a considerable number of ghits, though, and even multiple hundred results each from Google Scholar and Google Books. I wouldn't know where to start going about sourcing the claims in the article, though.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:52, 30 April 2007 (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.