Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slumming
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Slumming
Nn neologism. --Blackcap | talk 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nom removed. I came across this when all it said was about it being a phrase in Good Will Hunting, apparently not a neologism, keep. --Blackcap | talk 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a neologism but not encyclopedic either. Gazpacho 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Far from being a "nn neologism" this is a common and well-established word. However the article is an incomplete dictionary definition. Delete CalJW 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is a valid concept, but this article defines it narrowly and incorrectly. "To slum" originally meant simply to patronize, for the purpose of recreation and adventure, an establishment (e.g. a bar or restaurant) that is well below one's means. The author of this article has mistaken a derived usage, which is nonnotable, for the original usage, which is notable. I think someone can easily write an encyclopedic article about this phenomenon, elaborating on its motivations and its connection to the yuppie subculture, etc. So I vote to keep and improve. Bhumiya/Talk 02:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why not? Matt Yeager 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but would have been a delete vote before Bhumiya's edits. - Andre Engels 11:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but cleanup with a better sense of history. Slumming, in the sense of visiting a poor areas of a city as a lark/adventure by the realatively well-off, was popular in 1880s London and 1920s Harlem (NYC) and in many other times and places, it is not nearly as new as the current article implies. DES (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but continue cleanup with historical perspective, as per DES. --MCB 17:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep, important sociological concept of persons who "belong" in one level of establishment enjoying the forbidden fruit of patronizing a "lower" level of establishment. DES, I'd love for you to add your knowledge to the article. -- BD2412 talk 17:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is I have heard about this from individuals (members of my parents' generation) and read accounts in period fiction (lots of mentions in Jazz age fiction, including P. G. Wodehouse), but I don't have any quality citable sources to hand. DES (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep well known social relevance. Alf melmac 09:23, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
