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 delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Serious People (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)

The sourcing fails to meet the very clear criteria specified in WP:NEOLOGISM. There are no in-depth treatments in reliable independent secondary sources. It is not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - political name calling and garbage. Disgusting use of Wikipedia mainspace. Misuse of references and sources. BLP violations and more. Disheartening to even see such crap.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possible redirect to Paul Krugman - Almost completely dependent on blog sourcing referencing the term and even then limted to a very few individuals. Appears to be little more than an inside joke for a few. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion is about deleting the entire article; I'd appreciate it if you and others didn't try to whipsaw off every arguable source during this discussion. The Frederick Guy source (while self published) is of such a completely different character than any of the other blogs, it bears discussing on its own. Allow us to present sources without reflexively removing them before discussion, please. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CD and Buster, please explain to me how a unpublished working paper, which makes no mention of the phrase, along with a personal blog is usable in any situation. You seem to trying to use the unpublished working paper to provide evidence that Guy's blog can be used. If you would present a possible arguable source then I wouldn't have a problem, but what you are adding is complete rubbish. You seem to think that if you add a bunch of worthless sourcing it will make it look like this is more notable than it ireally is by filling up the reflist. If you have to resort to these kinds of sources, then it is quite clear that this article has no legs to stand on. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't understand the tendency to make this discussion personal, User:Arzel. For the record, neither User:CartoonDiablo or myself added the Guy source. Previously uninvolved editor User:Monado helpfully added the prose and citation. Three editors have added or reapplied the source, only one has so far objected. Accusations of WP:GAME in edit summaries are particularly unhelpful (and are somewhat indicative). I could easily claim summary deletion of potential sources is itself a form of gaming. This process is by nature adversarial, but there's no reason for any of us to be adversaries. Since we're all here to create the best possible encyclopedia, I'd think we'd want to look at a broad range of sources before we conclude the page warrants deletion. I simply requested those already committed to deletion to allow those of us who don't agree to add sources without snap judgements on the part of any one editor. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So that one editor misuses sources does not mean that you and CD should add them back in. Why not add a buch of message board postings while you are at it. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Why can't you just agree with me and do exactly what I want?" asks the above editor. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Non-RS sources are valid during the AfD process." says the above editor. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not just one editor, there is another reverting the non-RS sources and I also agree that neither source meets WP:RS. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- easily meets WP:GNG, something apparent from even the most casual perusal of source/search results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate how it meets these guidelines or this !vote should be dismissed. I don't see it at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Krugman Appears to have very little current usage otherwise at all. Wikipedia is not a place for catchphrases used primarily by one person or character, but such catchphrases can certainly be used in the article about that person or character. In the case at hand, Krugman is highly connected with usage of the catchphrase. Collect (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't appear to have any articles about it, and is generally a term use solely by Paul Krugman and a handful of his acolytes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Paul Krugman. Wikipedia is not a blow horn for political mudslinging.--v/r - TP 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was G. K. Chesterton using it as a "blow horn" against George Bernard Shaw? The phrase has been around since the 1920s. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NEOLOGISM--the previous AfD seemed to ignore WP:NEOLOGISM completely. It also seems like the article is mainly an excuse to insult the subjects in the guise of reporting which subjects are being insulted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. It's clear that this is a neologism, and the policy makes it very clear how you determine if it's notable enough to be kept (sorry for the lengthy copy and paste, but it's too relevant):

To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

The talk page also shows other uses of the term going back over a hundred years that demonstrate the 'definition' of this neologism on the article page is not even accurate original research, because it has been used in so many other ways. First Light (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Paul Krugman, with whom this phrase seems to be most closely associated. This article is adequately sourced and I don't agree that it's a 'BLP violation' or 'excuse to insult the subjects', but it's also not really a notable enough topic to justify its own article. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. there is overwhelming notability per WP:GNG as a phrase that has existed since the 1920s. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an overwhelming exaggeration. Please explain which sources meet the requirements in WP:NEOLOGISM, which would be the only sources that count toward notability in WP:GNG. Remember, sources which only use the term rather than analyze and discuss how it is used and its history, etc., don't count toward GNG. Yworo (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous secondary sources and the primary ones are reliable. Even if we use 2006-07 as the start dates (as opposed to the 20s) then as a phrase it has been around for almost a decade, not exactly a neologism. But more to the point, primary sources in and of themselves are not a basis for article deletion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are simply incorrect. The sources almost all appear to have been misused. Primary sources are not reliable and consist of personal blog being used to source facts and in one case is being used gainst BLP policy to remark on another figure. As has been asked now by two seperate editors, someone needs to demonstrate how this article meets WP:GNG. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The use by Krugman et alia as described here has little or nothing to do with the way Chesterton was using it; indeed, reading Chesterton, it's not clear that he intended the phrase to be a proper name at all. The invocation of Chesterton seems to be a COATRACK for modern political opinionation. Substantially concur with Ken Arromdee's assessment. Choess (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Previous uses are clearly not about the same thing, so this is clearly a WP:NEOLOGISM. That page says:

"We must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term... blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms"

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article on a non-notable neologism exists solely to be a WP:COATRACK to repeat insults against politicians that editors don't like. Peacock (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paul Krugman. Page may be insufficiently supported at this time, but I suspect we'll be back here again when notable politicians start including this term in their communications. BusterD (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of this datestamp, I have removed all mention of living people classified as "Very Serious People". There's no BLP issue with the current form of the article, and the BLP standard need not be applied to a concept, a concept which otherwise meets GNG. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, sourced, certainly as widely used as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that article out. It also does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEOLOGISM and so your argument is really no better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One third of my argument. You might have missed the rest of it. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not properly sourced. Not sourced with sources that establish notability, so neither assertion is true. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY sources, and primary sources don't count toward satisfying either WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:GNG. Which sources do you assert are WP:SECONDARY? Be specific so each can be confirmed or rebutted. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will you be closing this discussion or do you just like to argue? I'll leave my argument as it is for the closing administrator to judge as he or she sees fit, thanks though. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's what I thought. You either don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source or don't care. Or this is a tacit admission that none of the sources are secondary and that you can't show how notability is specifically established by such sources. I'm sure the closer will see through such an unsupported argument, so no worries on my side about this failure to be specific. Yworo (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or I know the difference but don't feel like feeding your trolling by arguing about it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• borderline keep I find at least one book hit [1], and it's all over GNews. Possibly a bit premature but there's some evidence here that it will have some staying power beyond just Krugman saying it. I agree that the Chesterton linkage is dubious at best. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be just a mention, doesn't really define or discuss the term itself in any depth as WP:NEOLOGISM suggests we need. We'd need two sources which actually do that to then meet WP:GNG. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't go through all the GNews hits looking for people who define it further, but I take book hits generally as sufficient evidence of notability for a term, whether or not they spell out a definition. As you say, though, one such hit is less than utterly convincing. It's choir practice night but perhaps in a day or so I can go through Gnews looking for a definition. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not just a definition, but a discussion of the usage, history, etc. Just like any other subject, _in depth_ or _significant_ coverage. See WP:42. What you are seeing on GNews is almost certainly usages of the term. And don't forget to put "Very Serious Person" in quotation marks. I see _75_ results. That's not many at all. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chris Hayes source has been added. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect. Not only is it not notable, there are WP:BLP violations which continue to pop up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Such as the one referred to by BusterD (talk · contribs) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news link. CBS news uses it. [2] Paul Krugman of the New York Times uses it a lot.[3] Many other places use it also, with capital letters for the start of each word, such as here. [4] CBS news talks about "the Very Serious People community".[5] Dream Focus 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read WP:NEOLOGISM? It specifically says that usage is not what makes a neologism notable. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word is at least seven years old. How is that neologism? Dream Focus 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • • OK, it's a paleologism. Can we move on to something important, please? This AfD and the related Bush Derangement Syndrome 7th AfD are truly disheartening. (Yes, 7th. It's called 6th, but that's because there are two different "2nds". Which pretty much sums up the whole thing.) Really, there's got to be something more important to do. Like, perhaps, creating a "These are not the droids for which you are looking" article. 'Cause as long as we're wasting time on foolishness, we might as well correct Obi-Wan's error in ending a sentence with a preposition, y'know? David in DC (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          It's the 6th, not the 7th. One of the two "2nd"s is a redirect to the other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Is it in the dictionary? No? Then it's either not notable or still a neologism. Linguistic assimilation of neologisms is very slow, as it should be. Yworo (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bootylicious is in the Oxford dictionary. Words get put in rather quickly and easily these days, however phrases do not. Dream Focus 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Specialized political glossaries? Don't see any of those on the refs list either. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • What does age have to do with it? Santorum is ten years old. It is a WP:NEOLOGISM. (Perhaps not actually. It appears that the name chnage also takes that distinction away and makes it a campaign to make it a neologism.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC) --Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Krugman. For better or worse, it's his "term" and the sourcing doesn't indicate any widespread usage. We don't and shouldn't have an article for every phrase a columnist likes to bandy about.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Article is just an attempt to use Wikipedia for popularizing some obscure American political neologism. Also no redirecting to anywhere.--Staberinde (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it maybe used Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The subject itself has not received continued significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. I see blurbs of the phrase but nothing that I would consider significant coverage where the subject of this article is the primary subject of the source. Therefore failing WP:GNG, the subject is not notable, and should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class. WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Bonewah and the fact that there is no significant discussion or analysis about the phrase. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 12 March 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.