Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribelet

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 merge to A.L. Kroeber. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribelet

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

dictionary definition of a word whose meaning is easily deduced from context. the fact that its only used for California native peoples does not make it particularly notable. could exist at Wiktionary. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree about WP:DICTDEF but I think it would be a valid redirect to A.L. Kroeber since it's a plausible search term. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per freerangefrog, good call, no need for deletion for a real term, this from nominator.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greetings all. In this case I’d argue for keeping the stub: while it is true that the concept was very strongly associated with Kroeber early on, and it is also true that it often considered offensive or derogatory, it is not true that the term should be seen in a purely lexicographical light. Its use extended far beyond Krober, and it continues to appear (often with considerable historiographical context explaining its negative connotations) in recent publications by highly reputable scholars, e.g., Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages, page 2 et seq. The term captures a fairly unique sociopolitical grouping in the area which is now California: the point Kroeber (and later others) was trying to pin down was that in this area linguistic and sociopolitical groupings diverged in distinct ways. (That said, the article certainly needs improvement!) babbage (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but would support a redirect. Based upon the article and its citations, this seems to be a neologism that has not been used by many other than its creator. Agent 86 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICTDEF and WP:NEO. GregJackP Boomer! 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:DICTDEF. That article info could be included on A.L. Kroeber like freerangefrog said. CrimsonBlue (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per freerangefrog. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 January 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.