Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenther movement


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tenther movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A neologism not backed by reliable independent sources. Footnotes 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are opinion pieces. Footnote 2 is a blog posting and footnote 3 is from an advocacy center. No scholarly books or journal articles, not even reportage pieces in newspapers, appear to mention this concept. Biruitorul Talk 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News shows over 100,000 references from sources such as CNN and others. If you don't like the references in the article, substitute better ones, but at least perform a Google search. We are voting on the concept, not the current state of the article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What Google are you using? Google Web returns 338 unique results. Google News returns 3 results, all of which seem to put quotation marks around "tenther". — Rankiri (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My typo, 100K in Google, not Google News, yet, Wikipedia requires just two good references. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia requires just two good references" - hm, I must have missed that one. Anyway, Richard, I'd be curious to see some of the "over 100,000 references from sources such as CNN and others" you claim exist. And I don't need your usual spiel about deficient Google skills; WP:BURDEN requires sources to be presented on Wikipedia.
 * Moreover, I will note that we still do not have any reliable media using the term in anything but an op-ed context. (This includes the three mentions Rankiri found on Google News.) Per WP:RS, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". We may cite editorials to show what certain people think about this topic, but the existence of the topic needs to be verifiable through neutral publications. Those simply aren't there, in contrast to, say, Birther and Truther, the notability of which is immediately apparent through a plethora of news reporting. - Biruitorul Talk 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment seems like a reasonable source. I'm not really convinced that this is anything more than a neologism that's been applied to an existing group for whatever reason rather than a novel political movement. Maybe a merge or refocussing of the article would be possible - although I don't know where. The minimum number of sources required for a topic is generally the minimum that will allow a high quality, neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article free of original research to be written. If that can't be done then it shouldn't matter if a Google search gives two results or two million. Guest9999 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's definitely an improvement over the previous sources. As you note, the question remains whether this is actually a discrete topic, or whether it might not be better to cover it here. - Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic clearly has some level of notability. The worst case is that we'd merge into an article like Tenth amendment and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Tenther found 120,000 hits on google "Results 1 - 10 of about 120,000 for tenther. (0.28 seconds)"  --76.85.163.92 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.85.163.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:BIGNUMBER.— Rankiri (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (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.