Talk:Luxury belief
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luxury belief article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Un-encyclopedic, shallow, biased[edit]
This is not an encyclopedic article. It's based on nothing but a bunch of opinion writers (including Henderson himself) shallowly using a concept that may or may not have empirical basis as a smart-sounding weapon against beliefs they don't like.
One academic paper is mentioned in passing as a fig leaf for the whole thing, and that one is paywalled so it's impossible for most readers to judge whether it's represented accurately.
I'm on vacation but I'll try to take a stab at improving it when I get home. 2001:1C02:2C0E:5800:C091:EBE:FD39:2A5C (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article is about the concept "luxury belief." Whether you feel threatened by it is of no consequence to Wikipedia. I do agree, however, that the article needs examples of such beliefs. Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Neologism tag[edit]
Page does not appear to document anything except a few passing attempts at popularizing the term. UniversalSnip (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Proposing deletion[edit]
I agree with the previous two talk page entries, this is not an encyclopaedia article, it is effectively just a summary of a 2019 magazine article.
Encyclopaedias - including Wikipedia - are tertiary sources, they cover established concepts and cite a mixture of secondary and primary sources on a topic. In this case, this article is effectively a secondary source which summarises and adds minor context to a primary source, which is not encyclopaedic. The reason for this is the lack of notability of the topic covered, which has not become established enough to garner a body of secondary analysis that would allow a proper encyclopaedia entry to be written from.
I suggest as a first step nominating this article for deletion due to the above. Moving forwards, if the topic covered by this article gains traction and becomes more established, then I would suggest recreating the article once it is possible to write a proper tertiary article.
I have accordingly added a deletion proposal tag to the article Williamxoxo (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've added some more secondary sources that I hope make a stronger case for including this article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)