Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pansy Craze

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. Despite multiple relists, no clear consensus emerged. It seems like the subject should be kept in one form or another but how exactly could not be determined. So Why 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pansy Craze

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

The title is a neologism that appeared in one 1994 book; the very few other references all quote that book, and the term has not caught on. The article itself is a compilation of mini-biographies but there is no unifying focus. More detail can be found at Talk:Pansy Craze#Neologism.2C and original research.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looking at the usage in books and scholarly works, the term is likely notable, through I couldn't find a proper definition anywhere. The article does seem to have major OR issues, and its narrow definition of the term as related to 1930s seems to contradict the sources I see which seem to talk of a longer time period. I am not sure if WP:TNT deletion would be needed here, of if this can be salvaged, but I do disagree with saying this is a non-notable neologism; this term, indeed likely created by Chauncey, has nonetheless garnered sufficient use to suggest it can likely be properly defined. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article is synthesis and original research as written. There is some scholarly use of the term, but generally referring to the 1920s rather than the 1930s. I support keeping the term as a redirect target; Timeline_of_LGBT_history#1920s is minimally acceptable. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - not enough participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is certainly a niche term, but given that it was used historically and represents a specific and identifiable social movement I think this would be better marked for improvement rather than deletion. Relevant information would be lost, or a large amount of specialized info would need to be added to more general articles on the history of homosexuality in America, if it were removed. There's really no need to remove relevant and specific niche articles that meet the criteria for notability. TheGrinningViking (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGrinningViking: I'm not against a 'keep', if that's what's correct here, but can you please elaborate on your "given that it was used historically"—was it really? From what I see, it's one guy in one book, and a few repeats. If by "used historically" you mean, "a few people used it [but it never caught on]" then I guess you're right, it was used historically. But the number of terms that are used a few times and never catch on is limitless, and I question whether they deserve an article, or even a mention. It's a feather in an academic's cap, if they come up with a term that gets picked up on, but if a couple of their friends or colleagues quote them here and there, and then it goes nowhere afterwards, this is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the way I see it. But I may be misunderstanding the criteria for notability, which is why I ask for clarification about what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2017 (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.