Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociocultural perspective
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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sociocultural perspective
This sub-stub has sat unexpanded for over a year and a half. The contents don't even rise to the level of a definition - they are more a self-evident restatement of the title. The article is an orphan, leading me to believe that this topic is probably unexpandable. The article has, however, been vandalized. (I discovered it while digging through the contribution history of a problem-user.) Unless solid evidence is presented that this article is expandable, I have to recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete dictdef. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
- Delete it's also an orphan with no prospective step parents. User:Ejrrjs says What? 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article name based on 37,900 hits on the exact name as written. It is clearly a well-used term. Stub it and expand. Simple. Flags are already there. Why not just expand a little rather than wasting our time with an AFD? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd be happy to vote keep on something expanded, but I can't do it, and dicdefs shouldn't stay for over a year just because they could be expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Mgm. A note about Google about something like this... it would pick up every instance of someone writing "From a sociocultural perspective...". I think it's more analagous to searching Google for "black couch" or something like that. Number of Google hits is just one aspect of determining whether an article should stay. ESkog | Talk 21:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a rather vague concept. If somebody would expand it into something useful, I might reconsider. *Dan T.* 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per Zordrac. Stifle 19:28, 6 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
