Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby killer

:{{la|Baby killer}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Baby killer}})

A synthetic accretion of three uses of a term, with no source to tie them together. Not encyclopedic; not helpful to a user searching on the term. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I proposed this for deletion, which PROD was removed with the comment "I see two reliable sources cited in the stub, therefore it meets WP:GNG." This however is not true, as WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not passing mentions. See also WP:NEO, which says that for articles about terms, sources must be about the term and not merely attest its use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::: WP:GNG states: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So if every sentence is tied to a reference, by definition "no original research is needed to extract the content". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note that user Richard Arthur Norton has since added one source that discusses the history of the term. My vote is still delete, because one source won't cut it. More, possibly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::WP:NEO is not applicable to a 100 year old word. "neologism" means new word or phrase, it can't be a new phrase if it was in use 100 years ago. The article sails by using WP:GNG. I suspect people are voting based on emotions and not actually reading the article or looking at the reliable sources already in use in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. (or WP:NEO). I don't see a need to transcode because the majority of our content here is already largely at [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/baby-killer Wiktionary]. In general, articles about terms, rather than ideas, require substantial coverage about the word or term, rather than the idea that that word or term expresses. Sources that do provide that sort of information (e..g, a putative "An Illustrated History of the term 'baby-killer') would provide that coverage, and while I didn't see any, it's possible that I've missed something, so additional sources that do discuss the term, it's history, and so forth, are welcome as always. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• : Apparently the article is quite in flux, it's more than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_killer&action=historysubmit&diff=416683090&oldid=416654331 trebled in size] since I made this the above comment. Will reevaluate when it's settled down. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• :: Affirm my vote as of reading the article at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_killer&oldid=416769845 this point], again, based on the policy WP:NOTDICT. That policy bears repeated reading as a whole to make sense of, but at its essence is an idea repeated many times within that policy document, e.g., To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. Addressing the seven sources, I find:
• ::# The On the Media source is entirely on-point, and is an appropriate reference that goes towards notability here.
• ::# The Vietnam War source misses the point, failing where our policy states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That policy is at the core of my complaints with this and following citations. This source provides three usages, but no significant analysis or in-depth coverage of the term.
• ::# Great Expectorations contains two uses of the term in quotations but no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.
• ::# Salon article, ditto. A couple references, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself,.
• ::# Killing Babies in America: Confuses a generic term "baby killer", with a nickname "Tiller the Baby Killer", which, for an article about a word rather than an idea is inappropriate. In any case, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.
• ::# Dr. Tiller Abortion.... : Does not use the term at all.
• ::# NYT: 1 usage, no analysis or coverage.
• :: As such, I do not find that at present the article current has sufficient sources to establish notability under the WP:GNG, and the article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'll add that in my experience it has been typical here at AfD in evaluating WP:NOTDICT claims to require significantly more than two on-point sources to demonstrate notability. Another independent source or two like the first, though, and I'd reconsider. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep it on the history of the usage of term and only the opening line is a definition. It most certainly isn't a neologism if the article points out usage from over 100 years ago. Neologism literally means "new word", maybe it was new 100 years ago, but not now. It also isn't a "synthesis" as the nominator states, there is no new conclusion that isn't already in the sources. If the article was to conclude that baby killers are happy people or baby killers are sad people, that would be a synthesized conclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as a POV content fork--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Convert to disambiguation page. Lots of things to point to that are called "baby killer". 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::There are no other Wikipedia articles to disambiguate, there is a song called "baby killer" but it doesn't have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::"baby killer" is a nickname for many things. Hence, a disambiguation page can be built. Such as the zeppelin bombers used in WWI over London. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Dude, the Germans were called "baby killers" after the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby not the zeppelins. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::The zeppelins were called "baby killers" [http://books.google.com/books?id=pn2sq9SyZ1oC&pg=PA249&dq=zeppelin+baby+killer&hl=en&ei=rb5uTY-tLsmitgfCrdDtDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=zeppelin%20baby%20killer&f=false][http://books.google.com/books?id=kKLtAAAAMAAJ&q=zeppelin+baby+killer&dq=zeppelin+baby+killer&hl=en&ei=rb5uTY-tLsmitgfCrdDtDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ][http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_XguAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3YUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2473,4864918&dq=zeppelin+baby+killer&hl=en] -- 65.95.15.144 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The article content has no cohesion; it is only a patchwork of various usages of the phrase. The phrase itself does not mean the same thing at each use. Telling history means telling a story and there is no story to tell here,no arc of development, no conflict, no resolution. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::While your critique may be true on my writing style, it doesn't argue any valid Wikipedia rule for deletion based either on notability of verifiability. WP:GNG states clearly: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::::It is not a topic. If it were a topic, it would not be a patchwork mess. It is a pair of words that have been used for this, for that, for a bunch of meanings. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I am still not following your logic. Your words are a critique of my writing style. All you did was pick out a word from the definition and say that wasn't met without really explaining. "Baby killer" is an epithet, I do not see how it has multiple meanings other than a "killer of babies", and even if it did have multiple meanings there is not Wikipedia rule that disallows articles on the meaning and usage of words and phrases with multiple meanings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::Then list me under WP:NOTDICT. There is no possible way for anyone to write this as an article, a clearly defined topic. It's not your writing that is a problem, it is the fact that "baby killer" cannot be stated clearly as an encyclopedia topic. The best that can be done is to list the various times the two words have been used together, which is what you've accomplished. That's not good enough to save it. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I would say that if it was a satisfactory topic for Brooke Gladstone and her On The Media show, then it has enough "cohesion" for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::One source does not an encyclopedia topic make. If you can find more sources, then the phrase might be suitable for an article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I removed the Prod because, while controversial, we don't censor ourselves, and it is well-sourced. As Mr. Norton points out, that creates a presumption of notability. The nominees have the burden of proof for deletion. In the meanwhile, the article is being improved. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:Presumption of notability requires significant coverage, not merely the attestation of instances in which the word was used. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Infanticide. A single source ("On the Media" March 26, 2010) discussing the phrase as rhetoric does not seem to satisfy GNG ("Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic") and NAD ("Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms) are duplicate articles that should be merged") in terms of making this particular wording notable. The other sources do not really discuss the phrase as a phrase but use it in arguing that charges of infanticide are sensational. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sourcing isn't great, but it looks like there is enough discussion of the term itself to justify an article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Binksternet. I'm not without sympathy for treating it as disambiguation, but who would look for baby killer as a keyword rather than abortionist / soldier / zeppelin / patent medicine? —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Huh? People would look it up to see the history of the usage of the term, just like any other English phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2011

::::Except that Wikipedia doesn't do "the history and usage of [terms]" unless the term is substantially notable as a term (e.g. Truthiness), and even then such articles are likely to be nominated for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (3rd nomination)). Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I just looked at the article again, after recent improvements, and there is still not a story to be told. The article has no comprehensible arc. It starts out with abortion, but there was infanticide before that, the killing of newborns. There are other usages, too... Right now it does not list the very early use of the term against Herod, against suspected violent men, and by angry doctors and parents when talking about various childhood diseases. Here are some earlier mentions of the pair of words used together, each earlier than anything yet found in the article under discussion:
• 1847 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=x0kCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "...the pathology and etiology of this 'insatiable baby-killer.' "] (about tetanus)
• 1869 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=GibyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA648&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "The morning rose clear and beautiful after a refreshing rain of the previous night, and off we go, "six precious souls," including the reformed baby-killer..."] (about a member of the Crow tribe leading a party of naturalists)
• 1869 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=5mYXAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA368&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "...no less a person than Mike Howe, the baby-killer of Van Diemen's Land"] (about a bandit in Tasmania)
• 1846 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=BgICAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA377&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "I immediately recognized the disease as being no other than that insatiable baby-killer, trismus."] (about the disease: Trismus)
• 1887 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=hlY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA397&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "Shoot if you dare, you cowardly baby-killer!"] From "That Yankee Missionary", a short story by Bret Harte)
• 1879 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=XgcZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA221&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "Herod, the great baby-killer"] (Oh, yeah, Herod)
• 1867 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=81ACAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=gipvTe-4BZH6swPLwd2pCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "The irate baby killer, scorned to answer, but left incontinently."] (About an old-fashioned obstetrician who had been botching a natural delivery, and was suggesting a perforator to kill the baby to save the mother. Homeopathy saved the day for both mother and newborn.)
• 1867 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=utQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=DDNvTaiAL4r6sAPq-73TCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "...Richard III—the "baby killer"—gave the Dukedom..."](about Richard III of England)
• 1856 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=eZF40yjonREC&pg=PA359&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=DDNvTaiAL4r6sAPq-73TCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "'Go ahead, old baby-killer!', said Dave"] (from a book by Alfred W. Arrington. The sentence is to accuse a man of killing a child immediately after it was born to his wife, because it had a different father.)
• 1867 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=zTKgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA48&dq=%22baby+killer%22#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20killer%22&f=false "Josephus says that Herod, the baby killer, was afflicted with a singular disease..."] (More Herod, described by Josephus)
• 1834 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=e8EsAAAAIAAJ&q=%22baby+killer%22&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=DDNvTaiAL4r6sAPq-73TCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCTgK "She was the baby killer, the dreaded child seizer of Sumerian and Babylonian religion."] (about the demon Lamme, also called Lamashtu)
• 1834 – [http://books.google.com/books?id=RXscAAAAMAAJ&q=%22baby+killer%22&dq=%22baby+killer%22&hl=en&ei=JzZvTYqhGYiosAPNqOHDCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwADgU "...a sad-faced British captain named Henry Hamilton began to pass out the kindling, free, to every prospective cabin burner and ravisher and baby killer."] (about pre-Revolutionary rebellion in America)

:Do any of these early sources trace the arc of a story? No, they do not. There are just various places and times and usages which do not relate at all to one another. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:: I agree, add them. Make it more cohesive and more of a narrative, I lack the skill. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::::...doesn't work that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Make a narrative up out of nothing? Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete — As shown above, the phrase doesn't have a notable, distinctive characteristic that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. It is simply too widely used, in too many unrelated situations, just like most other simple terms. We don't have articles on common terms like "card carrying member of"; "a deal breaker"; "Rabble rouser"; etc., even though we can find thousands of sourced examples of their use through history. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::Yet, scholarly reference works exist such as Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable for the origins and usage of phrases, and of course we have the On The Media broadcast that shows a history of the usage of this phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::: Yet, we don't have articles about most of the entries in Brewer. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:::...and the OTM broadcast you mention most certainly does not give us a history of the usage of the phrase. It gives us only a few examples of public usage of the phrase, mostly inaccurate usage as an inflammatory term of disparagement against military, political and ideological opponents. It may raise eyebrows when uttered by public individuals or in public settings, as would calling someone a "wife beater" or saying "fuck you" -- but we don't give such common invectives a Wikipedia article. At best, it would get a disambig page, but as Binksternet began to demonstrate, that page would likely become very lengthy, unfocused and basically useless. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Change to a list or delete  The topic "Baby killer" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the six definitions given at Wiktionary blurred together.  The definition given here for the term is not sourced.  Propose to change the article to be a list of sourced cases where people have used the phrase, that seems to be what is notable.  That removes the POV problems as well as the lack of a definition.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment wouldn't it be better as a disambiguation page? 65.95.15.144 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:::The two ideas are related.  How would the dab page be better?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

::::A dab page would only point to concepts that exist as articles or as sections of articles on Wikipedia. A list has no such restriction. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I agree that the dab solves both notability and POV problems, but I'm not seeing how that would work.  One of the notable examples is at Randy Neugebauer, but I don't see that the article discusses either "baby killer (house bill)" or "baby killer (politician)".  Likewise, I don't know that the Zeppelin page disambiguates "baby killer (postcard caption)" or "baby killer (Zeppelin)".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reason that we do not have "imperialist lackeys" or "nazi pigs". However well documented [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=+%22imperialist+lackeys%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=], [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22nazi+pigs%22&aq=f&aqi=g-v5&aql=&oq=], these (pejorative, which make them an open invitation to WP:BATTLEGROUND) phrases are used in too widely different contexts for it being possible to write a coherent encyclopedic article. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Well put. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete do to policies listed above. Usage does not equal topic and instances of use vary far too greatly. Pudge MclameO (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2011 (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.