Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy's Child Syndrome


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wendy's Child Syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable neologism; the term appears in a handful of third party works, but I don't think that any of them include coverage that rises to the level needed by WP:GNG. A neologism that is used incidentally in a single handful of works where none of them speak to its significance is not notable. Kevin (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you kindly explain "a single handful of works" ? How can a handful of works be single? The theory and the article are discussed in a number of academic publications, some of which are already cited. There is more than one page of dedicated coverage in the book Invading the Sacred which is also an academic grade work. I believe you have placed the deletion tag in error because the article fully satisfies WP:GNG on a number of grounds.  A "non-notable" term cannot appear in number of reputable publicatios as this one does. --History Sleuth (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what WP:GNG states about significant coveraage. This article more than meets this threshold. " "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."--History Sleuth (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked the book Invading the Sacred again. There are more than 3 dedicated pages to discuss the contents and implications of this theory in the essay titled "Chakra Hermeneutics". Further, this term has been in use since 2002 and has been quoted in a variety of reputable publications and it cannot be treated as neologism for wikipedia purposes. thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm unconvinced. There are only three cites on Google Scholar, and in each case, that's all there is: "RISA Lila-I: Wendy's Child Syndrome," which I presume is Malholtra's original essay.  As far as the links in the article go, they seem to be simple cuts-and-pastes from the scanty Google Books list, without apparent attempt to find out if the subject is discussed in "significant detail" in them.  Of the seven links given in the article, the subject is mentioned only in passing in an attack on Malhotra's views in the Nussbaum and Kurien books, only mentioned in passing (and again, in attacking Malhotra as a crackpot) in the University of Chicago and the Hawley articles, only mentioned in a footnote in the Machacek book.  Presuming that the subject is discussed in detail in Invading the Sacred - a presumption I'm not inclined to make - then that's the only reliable source on offer that does, which doesn't meet the GNG.  (It is also telling, by the bye, that the website for Invading the Sacred prominently features Malhotra, who was an honored guest at the launch party; one might question the book's independence from Malhotra, in the event.)   Ravenswing  01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A single handful = one handful's worth. You can modify 'handful' with number words like one/two/three or single/double/triple in the same way that you can talk about 'a single box of books' even if you the box has fifty books in it. A term CAN be used in MANY publications without achieving notability. In fact, I would venture a guess that there are an exceedingly large number of phrases that have occurred in multiple published academic works that are not notable in the context of Wikipedia. In terms of responding to your other comments, I think Ravenswing did so better than I could. Kevin (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete a term of abuse for American academics invented by a right-wing commentator who himself holds no academic credentials or abilities (note that his essays are published on conservative religious websites rather than in academic journals or even a newspaper). Appropriately, the term has received no significant coverage apart from coverage of its erstwhile inventor. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:28, 3 May 2011 (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.