Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quotaism


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotaism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure neologism used by South African white activists and pushed here by a tiny handful of s.p.a.s. whose NPOV is conspicuously absent. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Surely the origins of the contributor should not be the grounds for deletion. I believe the facts are accurate and rational. DV76 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete My numerous newspaper and magazine searches, US, internationally, India, and elsewhere, don't turn up any sources discussing the term in depth. There are a few scattered mentions on the web, but my sense is the term is not crystal clear, and is really a rather awkward vague way of saying "a quota-based system" or somesuch. In searches of Google books, there are some mentions, but not in depth. If we search for even a dictionary definition of 'quotaism', we're redirect to 'quota'. The lack of reliable references here suggests the article is mostly original research, and should either be deleted or else redirected to quota. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * I will concede the English references are short & sweet (but still clear enough). In SA its mainly referred to as “Proportional representation” or “Absolute representation”, but I couldn’t find any good English references.  It’s mainly the Afrikaans media reporting on this.  Redirecting to Quota would void it of all meaning (to wide), renaming would be a better option. Any suggesting?DV76 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes if the term is popular in South Africa, find South African newspapers, magazines and news sources (TV & radio). Next, assemble them into a search string like this (but with S.African news sources of course) -- (site:theguardian.com OR site:france24.com OR site:bbc.com OR site:cnn.com/world OR site:chinadaily.com OR site:canada.com OR site:msnbc.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:iht.com OR site:theage.com.au OR site:iol.co.za/the-star OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:jpost.com OR site:irishtimes.com OR site:economist.com). So into your browser put Quotaism followed by the search string (which acts as a filter). So you'll have a long search string to put into your browser bar. That might lead you to good sources. If found, rewrite the article but only using the sourced content -- remove any non-RS sources (blogs, promotional sites etc). If you need my help let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A rose by any other name ... – Sadly, it seems the media don’t use the text book term Quotaism directly, then again I am hopeful the textbooks resources trumps news articles.  I added a few more reference from reputable news sites for support. - Half the problem it’s a new social phenomenon.  The Textbook refs are from the 80’s and 90’s and the supporting news article are only starting to emerge in the last 10 years.  DV76 (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like the article to stay, consider removing references which are not considered reliable, and especially remove ones which don't use the exact word 'Quotaism' in it, since what happens when Wikipedians, having to slog through non-references, get annoyed and bored and are more likely to vote 'delete'. Consider removing article content which is not referenced, in the sense of less is more. If you fix up the article I may change my vote but right now I have other stuff I'm interested in working on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Quotaism and “Absolute representation” are the same subject matter, interchangeable term if you like (depending on the audience). Would adding the line: “Quotaism is often referred to as ‘Absolute representation’ “ help. DV76 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish the article to try to stay, fix it first as I suggested in the previous paragraph. Trying to link a non-notable term such as Quotaism to another term such as Absolute representation, well, is that a term in use either? A quick search of selected newspapers internationally here suggests the term is not used much. If you find sources for Quotaism and fix the article, I'll change my vote to keep, but my guess is that such an effort is likely to be unproductive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct. I tried myself.  -   The subject matter is still evolving and will take a while before it penetrates the international media.   I hear the trade unions are planning to take their case to the UN, maybe then  we will have good solid sources.  -   For now, striping it back to the basic definition may be the best cause of action.  -    Many thanks for your assistants.DV76 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & define more thoroughly.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is neither a neologism nor especially associated with South Africa. For example, here's a source defining and discussing it near;ly 40 years ago:  Andrew (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Switching to weak keep from delete, as per comments from other users. Problem is, the article, particularly the lede paragraphs, could be better written; if the article stays, I'll try to fix it up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is worth a Wikipedia entry. --Michael (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (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.