Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sissy nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Black Kite 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sissy nation

Sissy nation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Neologism of unclear notability, borders on soapboxing. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Save this article: From Dr. Slatner: —No neologism of unclear notability. Phrase now in common use in book as cited, also in interviews and national television C-Span, Sunday, February 10th "Book Talk" at 12 Noon. 12:00 PM 48 min Politics Sissy Nation: How America Became a Culture of Wimps & Stoopits Author: John Strausbaugh

see: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9080&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

John Strausbaugh argues that America has become a nation lacking courage and conviction in "Sissy Nation." Mr. Strausbaugh comments on the 2008 election and the influence of a sissified nation when choosing its political leaders.

While the quoted text mentions Strausbaugh's comments, it is the writer who is using the words "sissified nation" of his/her own accord. This is not a part of an author quote. Other words also in common use "sissification" "sissitude" "World World" and "fundadome" among others. Would it be better to add these or just stick with the more general term from which they arose, which would be "sissy nation?"

Also: There is no original research here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Isaac Slatner (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless thoroughly rewritten from sources as an article about the book instead of the term. There is no evidence the term itself has notability and at present the article is basically a brochure for the book. I might suggest a merge with John Strausbaugh, but the content is unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Isaac Slatner: Dhartung notoriously anti-Strausbaugh. Personal issues should not interfere. Nothing to suggest a "brochure for the book." Distorted POV ought not to be permitted on these pages, especially from moderators/editors. Otherwise, Dhartung epitomizes fair play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.59.242 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of Mr. Strausbaugh before today. Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. It does not help your case. --Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at the very least a complete overhall to focus on the book as long as notability can be established. I concur that the content appears to be nothing more than an ad for the book and it's author at the moment. There does not appear to be WP:V, certainly no references to trusted sources - it is perhaps telling that the top returned links on Google are the books' own website. Fails the standards in WP:NB --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Save Re-written Entry, Dr. Isaac Slatner: It appears that the overhaul and "thorough rewriting" by additional identified and unidentified contributors has succeeded in making the article "about the book" and about the subject at large. Several very worthy books, including Cooper's mention of a favorite of mine, and authors are included along with sources of note. Entire entry now fits into greater context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Isaac Slatner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete and Salt - A POV article and does not comply with WP:NEO. Even if it were to be written in NPOV format, it still would fail WP:NEO and it would be non-notable. Jd027chat 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh, I think salting is a bit extreme for the time being. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete but not salt -- its a 2008 book, so it might possibly become notable. DGG (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - this utterly non-encyclopedic, POV article. I agree books might be here, but then they must be very much more commented than this one is, so for the time being rewrite is not an option. Greswik (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - even after edit it's still POV, although the verifiability has been marginally improved. I don't think the author's blog counts as a an independent source. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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.