Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purpleskirt


 * 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpleskirt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Unssourced, local neologism. Dictionary definition, to boot. Contested prod, de-prodded by anon without comment. eaolson 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note from author (Martin_Wheeler) -- Glastonbury resident; academic; and publisher. Neologism it most certainly is; and neologisms don't easily or quickly enter the written record. For non-residents of this town, terms like 'the purpleskirt effect' or 'the purpleskirt community' are probably a little mystifying; but for the sociology researchers from Japan, Canada, Germany who have investigated the community in recent years whilst preparing their theses [usually available as monoprints only], these terms are valid and meaningful. Personally, I've been aware of the usage for the past ten years at least. It's a moot point whether the clothing store of the same name in L.A. picked up the term or not from a visit to the town (many film and TV 'personalities' visit the town from London specifically to buy 'purpleskirt' items in the town's various clothing boutiques).
 * Comment. Neologims aren't generally appropriate for WP. See WP:NEO. This term gets no hits in Google, let alone any theses in Google Scholar. eaolson 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism of little importance no matter how we look at it. I would also like to question the above assumption that researchers from Germany, Japan and Canada are all superinterested in the sociology of purple skirts in an 10000 people small town, chakra or no chakra. If these theses do exist, then their title and abstract (at least in Canada) are publicly available so it should not be a problem to tell us what theses you're talking about. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Wheeler You're obviously hell-bent on deleting the article -- so go ahead. You just lost a contributor who preferred to give Wikip(a)edia the benefit of the doubt in the rows raging about the competence of its edtors -- but I now see that my academic colleagues are absolutely correct.

I leave you the following to ponder over (extract from one of the most highly respected academic lists):

>> Wikipedia welcomes experts as authors, but contributions are >> judged on their merit, not on their origin. I think the >> opposite model is worth trying, if only to understand why it >> doesn't work. > > CZ also judges contributions on merit, not origin--perhaps moreso than > Wikipedia does, since Wikipedians so often poorly judge the contributions of > people outside their inner circle. But when there's an intractable > dispute, and a content decision has to be made, it won't be made by a > 17-year-old "administrator," but by a real expert. Moreover, because we > actually recognize real-world expertise, instead of ignoring it, we can > enlist experts to approve articles. Wikipedia can't do so, because it is > anathema to Wikipedians to recognize expertise officially.

Says it all, really, doesn't it? (And btw -- I don't have to justify my credentials to people like yourself, and the innuendo of your remarks. If Canadians have such easy access to thesis abstracts, it should be a piece of cake for you to trace the afferent theses. One of them, is, in fact, from a Canadian University.) A bon entendeur, salut. Martin Wheeler
 * Delete per nom. No sources provided to establish notability.  By all means, take it any other forum of your choosing that doesn't require citation of sources. - Aagtbdfoua 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NEO and WP:RS. And Martin, please review WP:CITE, which states "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." If these theses do exist, then the burden of citation lies with the editor who introduces the information. If this truly is a notable sociological phenomenon that has been documented in multiple sources as you claim, then it has a place in WP. Easy as that. Caknuck 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at the top 100 Google hits reveal none that use the phrase in question in the manner described in the article. Caknuck 22:20, 7 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.