Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tipping Point (political)


 * 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. Consensus (excluding the single purpose account) is that the subject is not an appropriate article topic, and that the contents are original research by synthesis.  Sandstein  20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tipping Point (political)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The original author has taken a rarely-used catch phrase (which already has an article on its generic use), taken a group of seven references that mention the phrase in only three (one of them in a comment on a blog, hardly a reliable source), and synthesized this using original research and personal opinion. The phrase is not notable enough to merit its own article, and the the author seems to be using rather specious grounds to support his assumptions, most of which don't even mention the phrase. Violates WP:OR and to a lesser extent WP:NEO. This might merit a short mention in the generic article Tipping point, but I'm a bit doubtful of even that. Contested PROD, removed by the original author, Duuude007. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure This is an interesting one. The article is synched to the current US presidential election and contains a clear pro-one-candidate slant, so if it's kept the article needs balancing.  But I also believe the concept has unique relevance in politics, if good neutral sourcing can be located.  Merger back to the main tipping point article would be difficult because that article is a beefed-up DAB page in its current form. Townlake (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will admit that this AfD is not as cut-and-dried as most, but it's still enough IMHO. But enough about me. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha Hey, that's why we discuss these things right? There seems to be some potential overlap between this article and the tipping point (sociology) article - both articles might benefit from a merge .  Looking forward to seeing what others think. Townlake (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Changing opinion based on massive improvements over the last couple days. Possibly still too US-centric, but that can certainly be improved on. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think use of the term with reference to politics is an encyclopedic topic. It wouldn't even merit a usage note in a dictionary. Compare Turning point (political). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Turning point (political) would be a less common term, it is not a very prominent buzzword as Tipping Point is. But personally, because of its similarities, I would consider nominating it as a redirect to Tipping Point (political). I have added a number of citations and examples in good measure as an attempt to better balance this article. I hope that it is now more satisfactory.Duuude007 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have further expanded on subject matter and citations, and I believe that the articles and citations are at this point balanced. Please tell me what, if anything, it is still lacking, so that I can fix it, so that this article's flag for deletion can be removed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedia policy, the AfD notice will not be removed until the discussion is closed and the outcome carried out by an administrator. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article it well cited and written and couldn’t hurt to have such Information on had as it’s neither unbalanced nor irrelevant it thus deserves not to be deleted.Collinsas (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — Collinsas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But the subject is not notable enough on its own. I'll trot out an old line of mine: "The best-written article in the world isn't worth a thing if the subject is not notable." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for my ignorance, but since when was the once spoken strategery more worthy for notability than the often spoken tipping point? Especially one with a mere 5 citations? Duuude007 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, comparing one article's notability (or lack thereof) is not a valid argument. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct WP:OSE General avoidance principal invalidates my "Other stuff exists" argument, so I rescind it. The same policy would appear to apply to Ningauble's "Other stuff does not exist" argument. I submit a new argument along with a new update, that with the combination of 39 unique, verified citations with 15 using the term "tipping point", many of which from reputable sources, including a detailed analysis of the word's origin and why it pertains to politics specifically over merely social sciences, as well as quotes from world political and business leaders, referring specifically to the political aspect of a Tipping Point, that it does indeed have a significant amount of notability. Thanks for listening. Duuude007 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that more than half the references do not even contain the phrase "tipping point" in their title or text. I checked every one of them. I think that you've "link-bombed" this article in order to save it from deletion, but in doing so you have included many references that don't really apply, or which may apply in your opinion but cannot be independently verified. I might also add that the majority of these references come from sources that most observers would consider to be on the left side of the political spectrum, so there may be some neutral point of view issues creeping in the back door here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, I saw and had previously addressed that concern. That is when I went back over the documentation and made certain that there was an absolute fair balance in right, neutral and left wing references. There is a quote from Mccain,, one with Lieberman endorsing McCain, another with Republican Radio Talk show host Glenn beck talking about "tipping" points and McCain, two references to Republican Abraham Lincoln at least three examples of controversies against Obama, two citations against Clinton, two against Kerry. That is twelve right there, which are all right-slanted articles. I balanced right, left and neutral, and satisfying that request is also why there are some articles that don't have the term "tipping point" in them, but merely to have a point-counter point argument. Because the novel (the term's origin in this form) was only published in 2000, the further back you go, the less likely the term will be used in analyses, but the relevance still exists. Duuude007 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might do better to remove the refs that don't mention tipping points specifically. That is more of an issue than NPOV. It's more important that some other independent source recognizes the phrase "tipping point" than assuming a certain event constitutes one. I'll have to say your improvements are making a better case, but I'm still not totally convinced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Contributor Duuude007 has asked me to reassess in light of recent changes in the article. I offer the following observations in the spirit of constructive criticism, and apologize to editors who may feel this goes into too much depth for an AfD discussion. I have a couple problems with the article, and a comment on the general approach. Please bear with me as I treat each separately:
 * It should be noted that this is not a new, or newly noticed phenomenon. As the lead correctly observes, "tipping point" is a recent buzzword. Its use in the general media can trace its beginnings to Gladwell's popular 2000 book, and its application to electoral politics is recent enough to be considered a neologism . No doubt definitions for buzzwords are useful, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and eschews neologisms.
 * The body of the article reads like an essay on an aspect of electoral dynamics. There is a substantial body of literature treating these phenomena in depth from many perspectives, ranging from media policy to electoral strategy. By citing instances and incidents involving these phenomena, rather than reliable sources that address the subject broadly and in depth, the article becomes a piece of original research about this aspect of electoral dynamics.
 * If the intent in assembling all these references is merely to demonstrate general adoption of the buzzword by quantity of use-cases, then this is unnecessary because, as noted above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway. If, on the other hand, the intent is to create an article about the phenomenon to which the buzzword refers, then this illustrates one of the pitfalls of neologisms: research keyed to a neologism is bound to miss established literature that antedates the neologism or that eschews it as too informal.
 * To summarize in the hopelessly terse style common to AFD discussions: The article combines a WP:NEO buzzword WP:DICDEF with an WP:OR electoral dynamics WP:SYNTH. I hope this helps. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said — summarizes my thoughts very well, better than I've done myself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say that I feel more defeated than coached on article improvement. I am not certain at this stage other than what Realkyhick suggested that I could do to satisfy your demands, if even that, but I am willing to go to whatever ends to hopefully bring this to consensus, hence my prompt improvements upon request of the people in this discussion. If you are telling me to give up because this is not a place to edjucate people on a major aspect of our political, popular culture, then so be it. But that is how I feel, that is how passionate I am about it. Duuude007 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry if you feel dumped on. I was really trying to help you understand what Wikipedia is trying to do, rather than how to improve the article. Not that it can't be done, but that you would need a different approach and a lot of research. I sympathize with your frustration, but bear in mind that the more important the topic, the harder it is to write a good article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am more than willing to go to those lengths. At this point, while I am improving citation quality, I suppose that is what I am requesting advice on: on what factors of the article are most important to improve and how, so that this doesn't have to be considered a waste of time, due to lack of consensus. cheers, Duuude007 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem lies in your opinion that a "tipping point" is a major aspect of contemporary politics, and you seem to be in a distinct minority in that belief. I would call it a minor catch phrase that finds occasional use by bloggers and the talking-head crowd that incessantly occupies the green rooms of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So when Kerry and McCain, and British foreign Minister triesman: when they say it in the context of politics, they are irrelevant talking heads? I omitted Kerry's example from the article for the sake of balance. I also did a quick search on some previous presidential candidate wiki articles, and found the term also referenced on Al Gore and John Kerry. It is not as disconnected from our culture as you think. There might be a chance... of it being a candidate merger with the Bandwagon effect-Social Proof merger already being discussed. I would be willing to consider that, if consensus cannot be reached on its own. Duuude007 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. This is a synthesis of the tipping point concept as applied to politics, nothing more. Topic does not stand on its own. RayAYang (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH of the sociology version and politics? I can confidently assure you that I am far from the first or the 2nd, or the 1000th person to use the term in a purely political way, outside of sociology. The article even includes quotes backing up the fact that since the book was published in 2000, the concept was considered and adopted as a natural phenomenon in politics as well. As for the argument that you seem to be leaning to that sociopolitical science "isnt" social science, hey thats a grey area, I might bite. But if it were really that simple, then a merger of even "some" of this article would be valid with Tipping point (sociology), but that article itself is barely qualified to be more than a stub, with only two small paragraphs and zero citation references to back up the main article topic. Duuude007 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a 2008 US presidential election campaign analysis site. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is neither news nor specifically tied to one campaign. Heck, if you read the article, there are several examples that have absolutely nothing to do with McCain or Obama. And NPOV is not a valid challenge, the argument has already thoroughly been debunked. Duuude007 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (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.