Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status set (2nd nomination)

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. Merge discussions, if necessary, can take place on the talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status set

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable term. I can't find anything in a Google search on this term (obviously, searching for "status set" turns up lots of other, irrelevant, things!) and the one reference in the article is very evidently primary. Nothing of use in the prior AfD, which appears to have been about a completely different article (as one would expect for an eight-year gap) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previously deleted article is about the same concept as this article but with zero references. GB fan 17:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've confirmed what I thought, and what I meant - my statement wasn't very well expressed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable sociological term; a search for "Status set" merton in Google Books gives over 300 hits. The nominator should work on their google-fu. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, provide some please. Given the generic nature of the words, an arbitrary figure like that is useless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not confident this advances far beyond a stub at any point, but GBooks returns quite a few hits of this specific concept, coined by this specific writer, being used in context. If the concept is being cited this widely it is probably notable. Here is the search. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that particular search doesn't appear to show that this is independently notable of the guy who coined it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The abstracts alone are clearly concerned with the concept, first, and the "coiner" of the concept, second. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article and role set into Robert K. Merton, whcih already has extensive discussion of his theories.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search of GScholar for "Status set" sociology returns 667 hits. The first few pages of that search shows plenty of non-Merton sources using that term in the correct sense. The paper First Words: Do Sociologists Actually Use the Terms in Introductory Textbooks' Glossaries ? shows the term status set to be among the notable terms introduced in sociology textbooks and shows evidence that it has been used for decades. Plenty of secondary reliable sources, including sociology textbooks, suggest that this term is notable. The article, while short, has no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2013 (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.