Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling


 * 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. The result has become exceedingly obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signalling

 * – ( View AfD View log  signalling Stats )

I believe this article does not belong on Wikipedia, the subject is not about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc. It is a dictionary entry about a neologism and its meaning, usage and history. As per Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bacondrum (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I object to the reasoning that "the subject is not about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc.", because it quite clearly qualifies as a concept. Also, just because it's about an intangible concept doesn't mean that the article is a dictionary entry. The article doesn't just give a definition: it's inclusion of a short history and examples clearly make this a stub, which is not equivalent to a dictionary entry. Furthermore, this neologism is well-established and has received significant coverage in several reliable newspapers and magazines. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator has spent the last couple weeks absolutely devastating the content of this article via removal of significant sourced portions, I'm sure in preparation for this ill-conceived AfD so he can claim that the article is "a dictionary entry". This is an obviously encyclopedic topic. What needs deletion is Bacondrum's participation in it. -- Netoholic @ 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * most of what you’ve said here is just to attack me. Please stick to content. That is a personal attack and I ask that you withdraw it. Focus on the article not me. Bacondrum (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article has many sources talking about the history and development of the term. I don't see the problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * comment I urge those making their case here to read the relevant policy: “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopaedia...Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.” This is policy not a guideline or an essay. A term, phrase or neologism does not belong in an encyclopaedia.
 * This is an article about a neologism, a term. As for citations - the article citations are very weak. We cite 6 or 7 opinions pieces, one news article and a dictionary. The only book cited barely mentions the subject "...with urgent exclamations attached, which we might now cynically call virtue signalling." Bacondrum (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The main point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete things but that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." So, the issue here is not whether the topic is notable, but whether it is best covered under another related title.  For example, consider political correctness, prig and self-righteousness.  Are these the same thing?  If so, we might consider merger, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * keep' It is no great problem finding books which discuss the matter. The article needs improvement, and I don't think it really fits as something to be merged into some other article. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a widely covered, clearly notable topic, and the article could easily be improved with more sources. I don't agree with this "dictionary" reasoning at all. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 15:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NotDic for neologisms specifically covers this. As long as there are secondary sources analysing the term and the use of it - it is fine. "we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term". Here there is clearly criticism and analysis of the term and its historical and social context. PainProf (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are almost all primary sources, the only strong secondary source simply mentions the term. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is certainly a concept, notability is not determined by part of speech (Jumping, Flight) Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep notable subject per WP:NEXIST. Note: I object to the nominator's evisceration of the article's content: the nominator has a desire to see this article deleted and it is poor form. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to impression management. This looks likely to pass, but I'll share what I see: This is an article about a neologism. The concept that neologism signifies is impression management, and indeed this concept is already mentioned there. Depending on who you ask (or which of the sources in the article you look at, since it seems people are defining it in different ways) it could also mean ingratiation, signalling theory, slacktivism, self-righteousness, or feigned outrage, all of which we already cover in sufficient detail. We don't need another article on that subject just to apply a meme-ified pejorative. So the real argument becomes about the term-as-subject, which we tend to have a relatively high bar for when we already cover the subject itself. Unfortunately, the sourcing on that end isn't so good. Many of the sources aren't talking about the term-as-subject but about the underlying subject. This happens a lot with neologism articles, where coverage of the word is bolstered by coverage of ... the actual subject that we already cover. For example, Although it has appeared in earlier religious academic works in 2011 and 2010 cites two sources, neither of which mention this term. They're both about applications of signalling theory. The article is also based on several opinion pieces and poor sources. e.g. British journalist James Bartholomew is often credited with originating the term... - ok, what do we cite for that claim? We cite James Bartholomew ... twice (in The Spectator, which isn't bad but is mostly opinion). There are indeed a handful of others that are a bit better, but there's nothing here that couldn't be better served by a redirect (maybe even a selective merge). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: agreed with Andrew Davidson's framing of the issue, but with the view that yes, this topic is significantly different from the other related ones cited by various people in this discussion. The term has specific connotations of conservatism or anti-feminism or anti-left wing protests etc. which distinguish it from its claimed meaning of "someone making statements or actions in order to appear virtuous to another group" (which is the primary purpose of a great deal of human communication, and indeed already covered by many of our articles). — Bilorv (  Black Lives Matter  ) 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or even speedy keep. The subject is worthwhile, and there were references. I came across this deletion nomination while teaching about the subject, and my students and I were surprised to see it was in the process of being deleted. It looks as though the nominator removed about 50% of the content in this article before nominating it for deletion (from ~11,000 bytes to 6,000 bytes in the space of an hour), including much sourced content. These edits are particularly problematic. 67.1.111.60 (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is clearly about a concept. Although initially it maye have been an informal neologism, the term is mentioned increasingly often in academic publications (as a Google Scholar search will reveal). The evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller even published a book about it called Virtue Signaling: Essays on Darwinian Politics & Free Speech. Ariel Pontes (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A self-published book is about the best source we have, yes. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say the New York Times article, written by clinical researchers, and already included as a reference, is the best source we have. 67.1.111.60 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So a self-published book and an opinion piece. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Article needed work in order to make more encyclopedic, but there is encyclopedic content relating to the concept of Virtue Signalling. Whether that is its own article, or per Rhododendrites in another merged article is up to the weight of the content. Koncorde (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this stage, I couldn't blame an admin who closed this as keep, but since matters of notability are about the subject rather than the article, I'd like to request that the closer please specify which topic there is consensus to keep. Is it the neologism? That would mean removing the sources that are about an underlying concept (for example, the sources which don't even mention the term). Is it the variation of impression management? Is it an application of signalling theory? ... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is about a concept. I see no valid reason for it to be deleted, and I'm sure it'll still be used. WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per most of the above !votes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.