Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotton ceiling

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Cotton ceiling}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cotton_ceiling Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Cotton ceiling}})

As noted by User:Mathglot in Talk:Cotton_ceiling#Notability, "This topic is of doubtful notability for having its own article, and it is difficult to find significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention outside the blogosphere and opinion forums. There is virtually no news coverage (NYT searches for the term turn up articles on crop prices), and the one book reference is by a kook conspiracy theorist. Not every neologism that is created and causes some furious interactions on Twitter, blogs, or forums for a while deserves its own article." I myself looked both last June and this month for sources about the topic, and didn't spot any high-quality academic sources about the topic, but only sources mentioning it, mostly in passing, while discussing other things—and as noted, the results when searching e.g. Google Books or the NYT are mostly/often about price ceilings for actual cotton. I propose that the article be deleted. (Failing that, perhaps a much condensed summary could be merged into the article Trans woman.) -sche (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete simply because it doesn’t appear to have general notability at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Mathglot. ShimonChai (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I won't argue for or against deletion of the article, but it does seem like the phrase comes up often enough in academic sources to where it should most likely be mentioned somewhere, even if just in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

:: I have no objection to merging a (markedly) condensed summary to Trans woman or Transgender. On the talk page, I just put together two possible starting drafts for what such a summary could look like, if this AfD ends up favoring that approach. :) -sche (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

::*Oh most definitely - I was thinking about maybe 1-3 sentences max. From my research it seems to be mentioned often enough to where I think it should be mentioned somewhere at the very least, especially as it's something that I can imagine someone looking for. I think that the drafts are good, but I'd include the bit I added about the term's creator responding to the term and their clarification. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC):

::*I have no objection to -sche's proposal. Mathglot (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Online searches prove Mathglot's point. Off line nothing was found (though the search was limited to books and general-readership publications). -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.