Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warnock's dilemma

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnock's dilemma

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

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning perhaps very slightly to retention. Warnock's own posts are of course not relevant to notability. The Wired source that's buried in the external links section is, at best, just this side of triviality. But there are also better-than-paragraph discussions of the topic in at least a couple of print books (and I weakly suspect that offline magazine sources in the field may have further things to say). I'm uncertain that they are sufficient. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday, Ryan (2012). Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Portfolio. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-1-59184-553-9.
Rosenberg, Scott (2009). Say Everything: How Blogging Began, What It's Becoming, and Why It Matters. Crown Publishers. pp. 259–260. ISBN 978-0-307-45136-1.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. (BTW, not a dilemma, and trivial, too.) No independent sources which discuss the topic in depth. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its poorly worded and trivial but so are a lot of topics. That's irrelevant to whether it is notable which I think it just barely is. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the cites suggested above, which seem adequate to support the article as it stands. A bit of searching around indicates that this term has had considerable uptake even if its RS coverage is not quite what one would hope for. Seems like a useful thing to have an entry on. Alternatively, perhaps transwiki for merging into wikia:communitymgt:Warnock's Dilemma, if that's still a thing that happens.-- Visviva (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG so thus NOTABILITY is met. –Davey2010^Talk 04:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG. SoloUnEditor (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though really the appropriate thing would have been for no one to comment at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found it in the books cited as references. Seems notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (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.