Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glittering generality

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Glittering generality

Glittering generality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

News search found some 83 results, but per WP:NEO, they seem to be sources using the term, and not sources about the term. Overall, seems to be a misplaced dictionary entry.

I already removed a 400 word blockquote that didn't even use the term as likely WP:COPYVIO, being far too long to claim fair use at about half the length of the article, and not really relevant besides. As it did not use the term in the quote, there was no obvious way to shorten to a pertinent section.

So the article as it stands is:

• A dictionary definition
• A seemingly random assortment of times the term was used
• An unsourced claim regarding the Institute for Propaganda Analysis
• An unsourced paragraph that is probably 100% WP:OR

There is already a Wiktionary entry, and the article here doesn't seem to go significantly beyond this in any encyclopedic sense, but only in content that could probably all be removed under relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Also, is "glittering and sound generalities" even the same as "Glittering generality?" For to add "sound" to the phrase, as the more notable use does, rather changes the meaning, it seems to me. Delete per nom. This is a dictionary entry -- at best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. IMO, keeping would require multiple scholarly sources discussing the use of this phrase in political discourse, not of it's origin, of it's power an use in political discourse. Written by political scientists, political analysts, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Retain. The Wiktionary article does not list glittering generalities, does not call them vague, nor does it adequately explain how they are vague. The page for propaganda techniques has links for many or all of the techniques listed, which I suspect is for good reason. The article is not a mere dictionary entry. Even if the article could use a lot of improvement, that's not a reason to delete it entirely. 110.55.2.46 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the Wiktionary entry? TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure yet but leaning keep - This is a tough one. On on hand it shares a lot in common with platitude and some other terms for which we have articles, and the article is not terribly well sourced. On the other, this is a very well known term in propaganda literature (in the sense of not just use but part of analysis). Brief mentions are everywhere, meh/weak sources abound (About.com [more useful for the sources it points to] and propagandacritic.com, for example), but I'm yet to find anything really great. Perhaps because enthusiasm for the study of propaganda quieted down before the Internet. It's one of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis's "seven common propaganda devices", which itself (the list) could probably sustain an article. Covered here, at least in part via the IPA: Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. There are also sources from that same era as the IPA, like How to Detect Propaganda in the Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1938). It's part of this analysis of Animal Farm, looks to come up in a lot of educational materials (i.e. used in classrooms) that I'm coming across via Google, comes up in this article on First Monday, returns more than 2000 hits on Google Scholar (remember to search for the plural "glittering generalities", which returns far more hits than the singular version), and I haven't been through even a small fraction of hits (most, but not all, it seems, are one-off uses rather than viable sources for encyclopedic treatment). I'm sort of cobbling together bits and pieces here, I know, but I'm here to fight for freedom and knowledge for everybody, and I believe we must be strong and steadfast in our determination to find sources! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- The problem with the article is that is covers a definition and a single instance of it. If the article were expanded to give more examples, it might be worth having, but if there really is only one, do we really need this? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Found 22 hits from HighBeam with the term being used, one definition here - ETC: A Review of General Semantics, and the most notable examples of it being used were: What it's like to debate Sarah Palin and Stevens used it in his dissent in Citizens United v. FEC - He said the majority's "glittering generality" that corporate speech, like individual speech, is protected under the First Amendment was a "conceit" that is "not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the court's disposition of this case."-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2016 (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.