Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special snowflake


 * 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 soft redirect. Soft redirect to special snowflake syndrome. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 00:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Special snowflake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, basically a dictionary entry. No reliable third-party sources, likely original research, not the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. If this term were notable enough for a Wikipedia article (which I rather doubt), it would be easier to start over from scratch than to try and turn this page into something useful: WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology. With nsrcicism such a common topic in current media too Hawaan12 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just have to go and lie down for a moment to regain my composure after the shock of seeing the phrase "more unique" in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article...................... Now, if this is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology there must be academic sources. Where are they? Note that we already have various articles on related topics such as narcissism, egocentrism. egotism, spoiled child etc. What distinguishes this topic from any of those? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this phrase is used in academics at all --Laber□T 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, but maybe Hawaan12 can substantiate the claim that this is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology and prove us both wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The phrase has been used commonly in numerous notable and reliable sources to refer to everything from unique, bizarre names like Zaydynnn and SSSST (pronounced "Forest" because, you get it, Four S) to the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. The article could be expanded, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that this phrase has lots of different meanings is something for a dictionary to describe, not an encyclopedia. Is there a notable concept among those meanings that isn't already covered in other articles with less cutesy titles? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A dictionary can't go into as much detail as an encyclopedia. That's why it should be in both places. They're clearly not mutually exclusive. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is nothing to do with the level of detail. It is that a dictionary covers words and phrases and an encyclopedia covers things and concepts. Occasionally a word or phrase can be a concept in itself, so should be covered in both, but I don't see any evidence that that is the case here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per my comments above I see no evidence that there is any encyclopedic concept here that is not covered in other much better, well sourced, articles. I must add that I disagree completely with the nominator's invocation of WP:TNT, which is an essay that has no support whatsoever in policy or guidelines, and I wish people would stop invoking it in deletion discussions. If something needs rewriting from scratch then that can be done by normal editing without any admin having to press the "delete" button, but in this case the article needs deleting, not rewriting from scratch. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, term that has only been used in certain online communities, no notable use in mainstream politics and no use in any scientific context whatsoever. If kept, this would need a complete rewrite, and I really don't know what one could write in such an article in a neutral and encyclopedic way. Also, the article gives no examples, neither made-up nor real life, what kind of individual actually would be considered such a person, and it doesn't give the reader any criteria that he could use to determine that either. --Laber□T 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two editors have expressed views about deletion on the article talk page. I shall take the liberty of copying their comments here so that those views can be taken into account. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I support deletion. I do not see why this page is necessary and seems to only be used to attack people. Name calling is not for Wikipedia. HarryKernow (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this page, I support keeping this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not puritan prose. Much worse slurs than this are covered on wikipedia. If things need to be improved on this page, do so or leave a request specifying what to improve. Virtual book burning is not the solution. Wikipedia pages are not created for necessity, but for usefulness. Explaining a phrase used in the press, in the media and on social media is useful. No people are named in the article (bar authors), so no people are attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rational Absurdity (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to wiktionary at special snowflake syndrome. This seems to be a term in wide use. On the political side, there are articles like I'm Gen Y, and I'm Not a Special Snowflake. I'm Broke. in Mother Jones, Special Snowflakes? Or Fascists? at The National Review and The "Special Snowflake" Syndrome of American Conservatives at Daily Kos. On the pop science side we have Special Snowflakes: Why Some Kids Think They Are Exceptional at Science 2.0, which references the PNAS article Origins of narcissism in children. The term is also used in reference to university students in a book on university ethics and some professional development sites like Accurate Self-Perception vs. Special Snowflake Syndrome at JDEmployed and Special Snowflake Syndrome Trigger Warning: I’m A Jerk at Above The law. There is even a WP:SNOWFLAKE essay, admittedly about articles, not people. All of these sources may or may not be enough for notability as a particular type of narcissism with a hypothesized developmental origin. But there is definitely enough material to verify the term for a redirect to wiktionary at special snowflake syndrome. --Mark viking (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Self-esteem. The frequency with which a term is used is irrelevant for inclusion here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are countless terms which would return lots of ghits that have no place on Wikipedia because Wikipedia just cares about notable concepts rather than word use (which is a hallmark of lexicography, not encyclopedism). There's an overlap between the two reference works, of course, when the term takes on a life of its own, with separate meanings and a great deal of sourcing talking specifically about the term in its own right rather than simply using the term or talking about it in the same way one would talk about a concept we already cover. So we would need coverage of "special snowflake" that talks about that specific term, not using the term in general, and not talking about it as though it's synonymous with a topic we already cover (like self-esteem). If someone could just as easily say "kids who are told they are special to boost their self-esteem, as part of the self-esteem movement", that means we don't need a separate article (although I will say I'm surprised we don't have an article for self-esteem movement -- but this certainly isn't the material to start it with). As with many terms, there are shades of difference between calling someone a "special snowflake" or a "unique and beautiful snowflake" or "unique snowflake" or when someone says that "everybody is their own snowflake" (or any of the other countless terms that are very frequently used and will return a bunch of ghits, but mean more or less the same thing), per WP:NOPAGE (and WP:DICDEF/WP:NEO), we don't need separate pages for each one. The underlying concept has to do with self-esteem, ego, individuality, etc. so that's where this should go. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to special snowflake syndrome or delete. This isn't Urban Dictionary, and we don't track the definitions of popular phrases/memes – unless they pass WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG.  I don't see evidence that this does.  Sure, people use the phrase, but we need more than just use and/or definitions.  I wasn't too keen on keeping manspreading, but it's got real coverage – people talk about it specifically, analyze it, criticize it, have mounted campaigns against it, and have generally made a nuisance of themselves by constantly writing articles about it.  When this reaches that point, we can create an article on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to special snowflake syndrome. A vague and generally derogatory slang term. Could in theory redirect to spoiled child, but I don't support that. Compare attention whore, which could in theory redirect to histrionic personality disorder but doesn't; soft redirects to wiktionary entry instead. PS., the "Taki Magazine" reference contains blatantly racist material... IamNotU (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a "delete" opiner above I'm not averse to making this a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but that should only be done after deletion of the article history, particularly as it is partly based on and links to an article which, predictably for an article in a publication published by Taki Theodoracopulos, is indeed racist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wiktionary for now as that seems best. SwisterTwister   talk  05:00, 28 April 2016 (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.