Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour (charm)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour (charm)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there's a perfectly good article on wiktionary. This appears to be nothing more than original research. Citations don't actually point anywhere so it's all unverifiable. --Ged UK (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is on a perfectly standard topic- it's about the concept of glamour, for example the glamour of the early film pioneers or the glamour of James Bond movies. It's simply about how people accessorize and present themselves. It is not a dictionary definition as per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary as it talks about a single meaning, as with all other wikipedia articles, whereas dictionary definitions such as wiktionary:glamour describe several. It's clearly a stub, and is by no means complete. It also is, contrary to the nomination, correctly linked to reliable source reference material. It therefore does not constitute original research. This appears to be a bad faith attempt to delete this article by the nominator, it's the second time in less than a day he has attempted to delete it, and both times he has made spurious claims about the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we're going to bring previous deletions into it, it was speedy deleted by an admin. --Ged UK (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, after you misrepresented it. Admins have been known to make mistakes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the result is keep can the article be renamed? My first thought was "spell" (and I note that the DAB page has a red-linked Glamour (spell)). As "charm" is ambiguous, maybe "Glamour (style)" could be used instead? That said, I'm not swayed by keep right now; the one reference is to a video - if the article had more (textual) references and the violence and transport sections were expanded I might be minded to veer toward the keep-camp, but right now I'm struggling to see this as anything other than a dic-def. As this is acknowledged to be a stub I'll hold off on registering a !vote for now. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand what a dicdef article is about (nearly everyone does). Dicdef articles are about the term; but this is about the concept of glamour, not how the term is used. A true dicdef article archetypally contains multiple definitions of a term. This is about as far from dicdef as you can get.
  To vote delete right now you would have to essentially say that there's something wrong with the article and that the article cannot be fixed.
  The other thing which is probably confusing in the title is the term 'charm'. It's a slightly unusual/archaic use of the term, it means charm as in charm bracelet. It means an article or trinket or possession. It doesn't mean attractiveness, it's an item that makes you attractive. If you look up charm in the dictionary, it's listed as one of the possible meanings.
  Unfortunately, glamour here is subtly distinct from style- style is a set of ways of doing something, and you can have schools of style, but I don't think you have schools of glamour. They're not quite synonymous.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I checked Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it mentioned nothing about multiple or singular definitions of a term. I formed my view (bearing in mind the current state of the article) because the article did not expand significantly on a dictionary definition of the term - hence my comment that the sections on violence and transport should be expanded.
    You are of course absolutely correct about the use of the word "charm"; I feel it is an ambiguous and poor choice of title. I'm familiar with the usage, but feel that a less ambiguous term would be better - precisely because it is somewhat archaic and unusual it makes a poor choice for an adjective whose purpose is to qualify and clarify.
    Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Under wiktionary- Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote whereas wikipedia's articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct. Hence my view that the article should expand the violence and transport sections - to shift the emphasis towards an examination of the concept.
        Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that style isn't quite right either. I would have preferred it without a bracketed term at all, but 99% of the use within the wikipedia is glamour magazine, and nearly all the links expect that to be at Glamour. In a very real sense the magazine has hijacked the term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was thinking about that, and I'm inclined to agree. This is about the concept of glamour, not about a magazine or anything else that requires qualification. I'm not convinced that needing to update DAB-links should prevent us using the most appropriate article name. I'll volunteer for some DAB updating...
        Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (Aside: there are ~~about 130~~ 64 links to Glamour including talk pages; ~~I had a quick look at the first 10 or so, and most do seem to be really about Glamour (magazine). I think that that's manageable, if we needed to disambiguate the links.~~ I've DAB'd the Glamour (magazine) links; there are still a fair few Glamour (spell) links to do and there are also some references to "glamour modelling". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 03:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment As the admin who originally deleted this, i admit that i probably did not look closely enough at the article, it was not really speedy deletable, however, as it stands the article is chaotic and a mess, going off in seemingly random directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-16 01:03:57
Strong Delete Article doesn't establish notability (as encyclopedic term). If someone fixes it, adds references, and rewrites it to make it encyclopedic, let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article is exactly the same sort of glamour that the early Hollywood system was promoting. Are you saying that the Hollywood glamour that was a deliberate and conscious product of that system is not encyclopedic?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, further, are you actually claiming that the entire concept of glamour is inherently not encyclopedic? There's no other article in the wikipedia on this subject. I'm seriously asking this, because I'm kinda floored that somebody would claim that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not up to the article to "establish notability". That is not deletion policy. It is up to you to look for sources and to determine that no in-depth sources exist. An article is deletable only if, after attempts have been made to find suitable sources, none can be found. Since, as evidenced by your later comments in this very discussion, you haven't looked beyond the one source that was cited in the article, and have made no effort to look for other sources to see whether any exist, your rationale for deletion holds no water at all. You cannot possibly know whether something is non-notable or unencyclopaedic if you have made zero effort to find out. You do not help either Wikipedia or the AFD process by not looking for sources. The proper study of encyclopaedists is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources.. Please start with the finding step. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename. Entirely unrelated to this AfD (!), I've just gone through and DAB'd "Glamour magazine" to "Glamour (magazine)" - along the way I encountered numerous wiki-links to glamour. I believe there is a genuine need for an article on the broad concept of glamour. This article (Glamour (charm)) comes closest to providing that, and should be developed further. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone actually clicked on the one reference in the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally. It was a video, and I'm on limited bandwidth so I didn't view it. I would hope that as the article is developed it would get better references (and lose this one). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 06:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to be an ad for Virginia Postrel whose talk it links to and uses (repeatedly) as its only source. It also quotes her. ~~I've tagged it as spam,~~ and I think it should be deleted. ~~If someone wants to write a legitimate article on Glamour, you have my approval.~~ Is someone going to properly reference and rewirte this article?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that this extremely stubby article is way too unglamorous to be considered an advert for Ms. Postrel, nor do I think that a non stubby version would reference a single source. I'm also amused by the way you struck out the bit in your comment where you call for someone to write a new article from scratch, but also call for its deletion, as well as its rewriting. If it's to be deleted, what's to rewrite? You really do seem pretty confused.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struck out my comments and removed the speedy deletion tag I put on the article as a courtesy because I checked and saw that the article is new. Also several editors seem to have expressed some interest in the subject. So I thought perhaps someone had intended to add more content with references and simply hadn't gotten around to it, in which case an "under construction" tag would have been a good thing to add. But providing a single source and referencing it again and again and again and that one source being Postrel is very strange indeed. And the source is to her talk, not an article, which is in itself unusual. So I would delete it ASAP, but because of my infinite kindness I thought I'd see if people wanted to take the opportunity to fix it instead. Although there's not much there to fix as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not strange at all. One editor coming along with one source, and writing based upon that source, then another editor coming along with another source, and writing more, is a normal course of article development. An article with "not much there" is called a stub. Please familiarize yourself with how articles begin and grow at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic in the most literal sense possible. The general purpose paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon has an entry for "glamour" (the word is the same in Norwegian as it is in English.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further to Sjakkalle, it's also encyclopaedic in the Wikipedia-specific sense. I actually have looked for sources, that cover this subject in depth, myself, as one is supposed to do in these discussions. I found Gundle, for example, whose 3 page exposition on the subject at the start of the chapter could be used to vastly improve this article. Yes, this article is in need of cleanup. But that is the result of FUTON bias in the sources used so far, nothing more. Editing solves that. Multiple independent in-depth sources discussing the subject exist. (I'm sure that we could even track down Margaret Farrand Thorp if editors were willing to collaborate and actually lend their efforts to looking for sources.) The PNC is satisfied. Making the article better is a matter of editing and writing, not deletion. Keep Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (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.