Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flemming Rule

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. Despite initial concern, consensus emerged that there is available non-trivial coverage. WilliamH (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flemming Rule

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another hopelessly malformed/WP:QUOTEFARMed stub, on another minor aspect of the (now-defunct) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the creator already has another AFDC article under AfD -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man out of the house (welfare rule)). No indication that this 'rule' merits a separate article. Sources cited are typically of low quality, and do not offer much in the way of "significant coverage" of the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but ensure material transferred to Aid to Families with Dependent Children - broader topic comes up under criticism. Babakathy (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest taking a close look at the reliability of the sources before transferring material. Only one source looks particularly reliable. And for that one source the "material" is simply a verbatim quotation of the article abstract. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added to the article, see below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suffeciently notable for its own page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is supposed to depend on available sources rather than the ones currently in the article - so I'm rather wondering whether anyone so far has looked at the GBooks results. On just the first page, [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] all look like usable reliable sources. PWilkinson (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is generally set rather higher where the topic is a subtopic of an existing article, and thus where (if a moderate amount of additional sourcing is found) a subsection of that article would be more appropriate than a stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say there is a good chance this article could be improved to where it makes sense to keep it. The Flemming rule is a notable concept,[6][7][8][9] not just a minor thing to mention within the discussion of AFDC. The article needs improvement however, perhaps a passing admin will consider relisting this discussion to allow improvement to occur in the next 7 days.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a "term of art" in the government welfare jargon. Others have specified many reliable sources here. A good start, but please add some of them to the article as inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've cleaned up/rewritten the article, removing copyvio problems in which prose was verbatim copy/pasted from sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following sources have been added to the article:

Jackson, Sondra Jackson; Brissett-Chapman, Sheryl (1999). "Serving African American children: child welfare perspectives". New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved January 23, 2012. ISBN 0765804344
Babb, Linda Anne (1999). Ethics in American Adoption. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey. pp. 51-52. Retrieved January 23, 2012. Flemming Rule. ISBN 089789538X
Ward, Deborah E (2005). "The White welfare state : the racialization of U.S. welfare policy". Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved January 23, 2012. ISBN 0472114557

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An historical term and concept that has received significant coverage in reliable, tertiary book sources and journals. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 23 January 2012 (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.