Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural leveling

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 as a stub. PeaceNT 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural leveling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. It's a substub, not a dictdef, and the difference is that there can be paragraphs written on the subject. Anything that can be taught in a Sociology 101 textbook should be in WP. hateless 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see much difference between a dictionary definition and a substub. If paragraphs can be written on the subject, then now's the time for that to happen. Otherwise I stand by the nomination. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DEL makes that distinction. AfD is not a method of cleanup, please don't misuse the process. hateless 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't misusing the process. Please assume good faith. I don't see paragraphs of information there, or even an encyclopedia article. I see a one-sentence dictionary definition. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That it is one sentence long does not make it a dictionary article. You don't understand the difference between a stub dictionary article and a stub encyclopaedia article. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which explains it. Uncle G 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've read WP:DICDEF and I still think this one-sentence article is better suited to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia. Please do not get upset or take it personally. If you think the article can and should be expanded, then by all means do so. If that is done, then my nomination of the article as a dictionary definition will no longer be valid and will be withdrawn. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Society topic, has encyclopedic potential. --sunstar net^talk 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded. It's possible that this is a real term describing a real phenomenon not already discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia (it seems to be related to but different from Cultural appropriation and Cultural assimilation and an antonym of Cultural diversity), but at the moment the article provides no evidence that it isn't just a protologism. —Angr 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transwikied already. --MaNeMeBasat 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sunstar and the above searches. Addhoc 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless or until someone writes a sourced article (or even a better stub) that asserts the term's notability and that the term does not have a more prominent synonym, such as "cultural globalization" or "global assimilation", in which case redirect. Pomte 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub that could be turned into a decent article. The fact that it is bad shape is reason to tag it for cleanup, not deletion. --Selket ^Talk 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per inappropriate nomination. This article, as it stands, is nothing more than a dictionary definition. It is not, however, inherently bound to be nothing more than a dicdef. Moreover, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY states: "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia". I do not think this critical step was taken before nominating the article for AfD. I don't think this is a bad-faith nomination, but an inappropriate one. Many stubs start out this way. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per inappropriate nomination. I don't know whether it's going to do any good to keep repeating that the relevant criteria is whether the topic could have an encyclopedic article written about it, and not whether it already does, but simply denying that won't cause it to disappear from policy. This nomination should never have been brought. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.