Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People


 * 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. Pretty well summed up by MelanieN's arguments. Also, see WP:HEY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Very Serious People

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article less than 60 days old about a term, supposedly a capitalized proper noun; nominated for deletion based on:
 * WP:SIGCOV: Topic has minimal coverage but no significant coverage
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Topic seems at best a wannabe neoligism unlikely to endure
 * WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 20:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase is defined in three RSs (specifically about the phrase) and does have significant coverage. The phrase has existed since 2007 up until today and the article isn't written like a dictionary. By those standards we would need to delete the Friedman Unit article which was also created by Atrios even though that phrase has significantly less coverage and use. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage in RS to show this is notable; sufficient content to lift this beyond a dictdef. --Lambiam 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NEO. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: this neologism has little if any encyclopedic value. Perhaps merge to Atrios. – Lionel (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per CartoonDiablo & Lambiam. Enough coverage in RS's to meet WP:GNG and not run afoul of WP:NEO, and it is not written like dictionary definition.--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of the three rationales given, two of them are obviously invalid. WP:NOTTEMPORARY? There is no evidence that this is in any way temporary or tied to any event. WP:NOT? This is clearly not an article that contains nothing more than a definition. Not even close. The proposer would be well advised in the future to pick one good rationale rather than throwing several against the wall and seeing if any of them stick. This leaves WP:SIGCOV, the only rationale that comes even close to being valid. The problem is, the article has enough coverage to meet our general notability guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with nomination. The article reads like something from Encyclopedia Dramatica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 July 2012‎

Discussion WP:SIGCOV... There are currently 12 cited sources. The so-called "sources" do not convey the neutral POV required of an encyclopedia (one actually-cited blog page simply states, "Very Serious People. The idiotic assholes who rule us. And dishonest, too."; that's all the cited blog-page says on the topic). -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 are written by Paul Krugman (the star of the Wikipedia article)
 * 7 are blogs, mostly referring to Krugman and his writings

WP:NOTTEMPORARY... The article's subject is like a small moon about "Liberal Planet Paul Krugman". As an independent article, "Very Serious People" simply doesn't survive the WP:10 year test, IMHO. -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT... The article includes the wannabe neoligism's definition and origination, which could easily be a dictionary listing. The rest (which should probably be deleted in part for its reliance on unusable sources) makes it clear that this "ironic" pejorative is a heavy-handed mallet used by self-described liberals to beat those who are either conservative or insufficiently liberal; targets for the epithet include conservatives like Alan K. Simpson, Michael O'Hanlon, Carly Fiorina, Paul Ryan. One cited source explicitly states, "As I'm sure you all know, one of the current favorite pastimes in the liberal blogosphere is to mock the Very Serious People who currently make up our foreign policy establishment [that is, conservatives in the George W. Bush administration]." -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:SIGCOV: Business Insider, The Daily Beast and CEPR are not blogs nor where they written by Krugman, and all of which are RSs. For those counting that's three reliable sources not including Krugman's Op-ed.
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Your opinion is noted but the phrase has survived for five years and chances are it'll survive for five more years.
 * WP:NOT: In case you forgot to read what NOT#DICTIONARY says, it only applies to articles that are only a definition without any kind of impact. Since this article is not just a definition of a phrase and includes it's usage then the reasoning doesn't apply.
 * These reasons are absolutely without any merit CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with CartoonDiablo. I suspect that 24dot's real objection is that this phrase is a "a heavy-handed mallet". Which it is. just like "Feminazi", "Little Eichmanns" and "Political correctness" are heavy-handed mallets. We don't have to like something to fairly report that it exists, nor should we delete articles because we don't like them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CEPR is explicitly, self-describedly "liberal", so it's linguistic ax to grind against conservatives isn't very useful, encyclopedia-wise. Business Insider and The Daily Beast are 'online publications'; even if reportings in both are WP:RS's, that certainly does NOT constitute significant coverage. I believe the wannabe-neologism is unlikely to endure, yes; editors may agree or disagree whether a mere term must populate an entire article independent of the ideologue who almost-uniquely champions the term. Without the material that should probably be deleted for quasi-WP:BLP reasons, the meaning and origination of this term are better left to Wiktionary, yes. -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have already explained, them having an axe to grind is not found among the valid reasons for deleting a Wikipedia article. Bringing it up again and again weakens your argument instead of strengthening it. There is a basic tactical reason why you should limit your arguments to those which are valid grounds for deletion; anybody who votes to delete and indicates that they are doing so because of your "axe to grind" argument will have their vote thrown out by the votetaker.
 * Of the rationales you have given, several of them are obviously invalid. You really do need to pick one good rationale rather than throwing several bad ones against the wall and seeing if any of them stick.
 * Take your WP:NOT#DICTIONARY argument. With all due respect, the only people who will accept that as a valid reason for deletion are people who have never actually read WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. That page clearly says that articles that contain nothing more than a definition (which this article does not) should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. Only if they can not be expanded should they be deleted. Yet you didn't bother arguing that this article is impossible to expand (which is clearly not true - it has already been expanded past being an article that contains nothing more than a definition). You would do well to read WP:DEL carefully and avoid arguments that are not valid reasons for deletion.
 * Likewise for WP:NOTTEMPORARY There is no evidence that this is in any way temporary or tied to any event.
 * The only argument that you have put forward which, if true, would be grounds for deletion is your claim that the article does not have enough coverage to meet our general notability guideline. All of the other arguments are invalid on the face of them.
 * On the coverage question, I would be most interested in hearing what policy you think makes it so that online publications do not constitute significant coverage WP:SIGCOV says just the opposite: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NEO. While I like the notable Paul Krugman, this neologism has not yet caught on; subject to the usual caveat about later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete as a Non-Notable Neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -> Carrite (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY states, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The WP:NOTTEMPORARY argument appears to be misconstrued Wikilawyering that should have checked the Wikilink before commenting.  The WP:NOT#DICTIONARY argument has been refuted, nor is the material in this article anything like Wiktionary would have.  I looked at all but a couple of sources listed in the article, where the main complaints would be that it is primarily Paul Krugman that is giving the phrase attention, and that the phrase has a scattering of meaning.  If so, either of these problems can be resolved with ordinary editing.  Beyond that, reliable sources are provided in the article to establish WP:GNG wp:notability, giving direct attention to the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I choose to agree with source analysis by User:CartoonDiablo above. Progressive blogger Digby has been using the term for many years as well. Professional blogs can be reliable sources and in this case, IMHO, they are. Krugman's NYT cred goes without saying. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a Digby (blogger) citation from May 18, 2007 which uses this term in precisely the same way the article does. I've also found this by Matt Stoller at MYDD from January 1, 2007 which uses the capitalized term "Very Serious People" and appears to refer to the same characterization of pundits. Leads me to believe this term predated Stoller's post. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not WP:TOOSOON since the term has been in use since at least 2007. It does not get its notability via inheritance from any one individual; the term is used by many people. And it does have significant coverage. The references in the article are not just examples of usage, they are ABOUT the phrase. They cite actual explanations, from multiple sources, of what this term means and who uses it and who they apply it to. The term is at least as well established as other notable political buzzwords that have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the article, eliminating the unproven claim that Atrios invented the phrase in 2010, and adding authors and dates to the references to make it clearer who said what when. It's clear that the term is used by many people who have no connection to Krugman and do not mention him in connection with it, and that they were using it long before Krugman was. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (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.