Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City slicker

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. Consensus is the sourcing is not sufficient to elevate this beyond the definition. Will also move the DAB as suggested Star Mississippi 18:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City slicker

[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)

Article lacks sourcing and reads like an extended dictionary definition reaching toward but not quite achieving encyclopedic tone. Recommend deleting and moving city slicker (disambiguation) here. QuietHere (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIC. Unlike the near-synonym about the phrase as a phrase (though I could find lots of scholarly work using it, mostly in article titles in social sciences). Contrary to earlier versions of the article suggesting it is white rural idiom, one of the few scholarly articles that I found mentioning the term is "Idioms of the present-day American negro" (Ruth Banks, American Speech 1938). Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Although it does not have sufficiently elevated linguistic standing for its current positioning as the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the City slicker (disambiguation) page, it is a very well known descriptive expression which is listed under the 15-page Category:Stereotypes of urban people, the 68-page Category:Class-related slurs as well as the 121-page Category:Pejorative terms for people. While it could certainly use additional inline cites, this brief article deserves continued presence among its companion entries at the City slicker (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that it appears in some large categories is immaterial. We need sources that discuss the idiom as a subject in itself. Like Cnilep I searched for those and came up short. While the meaning of the phrase might be common knowledge, I think it would actually be challenging to source the bulk of the article's contents without conducting original research. Jfire (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a simple case of an article about a word or phrase, a dictionary definition contravening
WP:NOTDICT. Not only are there insufficient sources in the article, there aren't any outside in the world, meaning the topic is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think these are sufficient. One dealing with the difficulty in translation of American idioms into Romanian [1], a discussion of slang words [2], contrasting the use of the term with American radicalism [3] and contrasting the term to others [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also mentioned in the Encyclopedia of American Folklore [5] Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I am confident there are more sources that can be found and the article can be improved. There are other terms that are less commonly used that have more developed pages (such as yokel) I am sure the wikipedia community can build up this one LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant
WP:SOURCESEXIST. At least Oaktree had the decency to link some rather than just assume they must be out there somewhere. QuietHere (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
QuietHere, I get that you are the nominator here so you are pro-Deletion but let's pull back on talk of "decency" and personal attacks on editors with an opposing points of view especially towards editors less experienced than yourself. LegalSmeagolian, take this as a teachable moment...it's better to find and report back on specific sources you have located which help establish notability rather than simply assert that they exist somewhere out there. Also, AFD discussions are probably not the best place for a newbie to learn about Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to try and get a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left a notice at WikiProject Languages regarding this AfD. Hopefully it doesn't end in no consensus 'cause that'd bother me more than a keep that I disagree with. And for what it's worth, Liz is correct that I spoke poorly above so I apologize to LegalSmeagolian for that. QuietHere (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good! @QuietHere LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly a case of
WP:NOTDICT. TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete After 18 years on Wikipedia, this entire article is sourced to a 1930 Mickey Mouse comic? This means the page, as of this datestamp, is entirely OR. I looked and there has never been anything approaching RS on this page. It is true sources presented by Oaktree b do mention the topic, but IMHO do not directly detail. After looking at the disambiguation page, I can't find any reason this article is necessary. In the event the outcome of this process is keep, I'll trust Oaktree b or other keep assertors to blow up the entirely unsourced OR page, and recreate it afresh from presented sources. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the disambiguation page into its place. It's a mostly unsourced
WP:DICDEF. Better served by the Wiktionary entry. If someone wants to make a real encyclopedia article about it in the future, they can give it a try and/or go through DRV, but there's nothing but a DICDEF to keep here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and move the DAB page as suggested by Rhododendrites above. This is a definition, not an article. Joyous! | Talk 18:22, 24 February 2023 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/City_slicker&oldid=1141368229"