Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red diaper baby

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red diaper baby

[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)

Fails notability. Insufficient sources. Was not able to find when doing WP:BEFORE. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already a great many references in the article that explain this term's notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left – the phrase does not seem notable independently of the book which invented it. The article contains a total of four sentences including the lede. Insufficient number of sources, and of the present ones, only LA Progressive (not a notable publication) touches on the phrase; The New York Times mentions it only in its headline, Marin Independent Journal is about a book and its author, the other two references are about books and are used to source just their existence. The further reading section seems like a general collection of everything else that merely mentions it. Categories and interwiki link can be kept on the redirect. –Vipz (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. The term "red diaper baby" has been around long before Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left was published. See this Google Scholar search. As well, see this magazine article from 1989, for example: New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. 1989-02-13. Other notable uses of the term include

https://lccn.loc.gov/2004463389 and https://lccn.loc.gov/2017900690, as well as the summary provided by the publisher for https://lccn.loc.gov/2022931969 See also http://ptsss.org/docs/nst121.pdf#page=103 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then delete? Significant coverage of the phrase itself establishes notability, not "notable use" for whatever purposes they use it for. –Vipz (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if what's the case? Kire1975 (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE: there are plenty of sources. I added one. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs cleanup, but the sources are plenty sufficient to establish notability. Kire1975 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept. pburka (talk) 23:57, 23 May 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.