Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signifyin' (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signifyin'

Fails WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR. Oh, and it's utter gibberish Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the concept is significant enough that multiple influential scholars have studied it. The lead paragraph of The Signifying Monkey actually covers this subject better than Signifyin' does, but we need an article on the concept and The Signifying Monkey should focus on Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s book. I'm not thrilled with the title, the article may need a name change, but WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't preclude articles on notable topics with problematic titles. The article's other problems merit editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when this came up at Proposed Deletion. Nswc5 contested it before I could. Baileypalblue is right. There is plenty of scholarly source material on this (including, for example, specific studies of Signifyin(g) in the works of Zora Neale Hurston and other writers of the Harlem Renaissance). Nswc5 (writing on the article's talk page) is right, too. This source material is sometimes esoteric and difficult for the layman to follow. However, neither technicality of sources nor difficulty for a non-expert to write are reasons for deletion given in our Wikipedia:deletion policy. We wait, in the expectation that someone will come along who is capable of writing, and improve the article. Most of our articles have developed this way. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a hammer for hitting editors over the head with in order to force volunteers to perform cleanup to one's own timetable. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for heaven's sake. Significant. Where the heck is Deeceevoice these days? Antandrus (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that this was a considerably more sensible article before a series of recent edits by Nswc5 (talk · contribs), which introduced quite a bit of OR into it. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Give xem a break. Xe was attempting in good faith to respond to several requests for cleanup on the talk page (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I was responding to the tone of the deletion nomination -- somehow I don't think the earlier version would have provoked that reaction. Sorry, but I'm calling it as I see it. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've overlooked, then, the part of the talk page where the earlier version already had provoked that reaction and Nswc5's response. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yes it's in dire need of a rewrite by someone who knows how to write clearly and is familiar with WP standards, but the subject is 100% deserving of an article. (and to Looie496 & Uncle G: yes, i tagged a previous version as needing a rewrite when someone turned a vague near-stub into painfully abstruse OR. the fact that the latest rewrite hasn't really helped is a reason to keep the article tagged for rewriting, not a reason to delete it.) Sssoul (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a worthwhile topic. I wish it was written in a way so that someone who didn't already know what it was could learn something about it by reading the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2009 (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.