Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talking point

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking point

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hey all, I'd like to delete Talking point per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I don't think it makes sense to merge it into anything because 1. there's not much to merge. It has been a measly one-paragraph stub for the past eight years and before that, it had a few unsourced paragraphs [1] that were correctly deleted and aren't worth salvaging. And reason 2, It's a common term that doesn't need to be defined in an encyclopedia. The phrase "talking point" is used in the text of around 800 Wikipedia articles. [2] but it's only linked-to in the text of about 30 articles (I'm not counting the articles that link to it from Template:Rhetoric). An entry on talking points is totally appropriate for a dictionary (like Wiktionary for example [3] but not an encyclopedia. Thoughts? Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Management, Psychology, and Social science. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems very feasible to write an encyclopedic article about talking points, the strategy of creating them and how they are used in politics and society. Here are some book-length treatments that seem like they could be used. In fact the article already goes well beyond a dictionary definition, though it needs some sourcing.--Jfhutson (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jfhutson, it's a worthwhile article. I disagree with Crunchydillpickle that it's a common term; that might be the case in certain spheres, e.g. news, politics, media, PR, but that doesn't mean it is well-understood by the ordinary person in the street. The reason I am watching the page is because I originally went to WP to get clarity on what the term meant, and even in its current form it helped me. The solution to its being a stub is to expand the article. Masato.harada (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE; see [4]. Although my high school students might not have heard of the term, it is a tertiary vocabulary that only college-educated people would understand - but that's exactly why our core readership will be looking for this term! If it's not improved by closure time, please userfy it to my user space, and I'll fix it. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2024 (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.