| Revision as of 02:38, 5 January 2011 editNorthernThunder (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,575 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:52, 5 January 2011 edit undoRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Ableism: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| This article was proposed for deletion back in ] and ''kept'' at that time. However, since then, it continues to appear to be a neologism with no general adoption — indeed, no adoption at all — from the legal community, of which the article claims to be the key area in which this concept is involved. (What I mean is this: I've just re-run Lexis searches for databases available to me: ''0'' California cases use it (even though California is a leading jurisdiction in the ]); ''0'' United States federal cases use it; and ''0'' non-California American state court cases within the last 10 years (that is the extent that the databases are available to me as far as non-California and non-federal cases are concerned) use it. Among legal journal articles available to me on Lexis (which is limited due to the package I get, but it's not a particularly small package), it's been used ''once'' in the last 10 years (Carrie Griffin Basas, "Back Rooms, Board Rooms - Reasonable Accommodation and Resistance Under the ADA, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 59 (2008)). Without adoption by the community, I think it is simply unsupported and is essentially original research. '''Delete''' (not merge) and then '''redirect''' to ]. --] (]) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | This article was proposed for deletion back in ] and ''kept'' at that time. However, since then, it continues to appear to be a neologism with no general adoption — indeed, no adoption at all — from the legal community, of which the article claims to be the key area in which this concept is involved. (What I mean is this: I've just re-run Lexis searches for databases available to me: ''0'' California cases use it (even though California is a leading jurisdiction in the ]); ''0'' United States federal cases use it; and ''0'' non-California American state court cases within the last 10 years (that is the extent that the databases are available to me as far as non-California and non-federal cases are concerned) use it. Among legal journal articles available to me on Lexis (which is limited due to the package I get, but it's not a particularly small package), it's been used ''once'' in the last 10 years (Carrie Griffin Basas, "Back Rooms, Board Rooms - Reasonable Accommodation and Resistance Under the ADA, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 59 (2008)). Without adoption by the community, I think it is simply unsupported and is essentially original research. '''Delete''' (not merge) and then '''redirect''' to ]. --] (]) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Disability discrimination is a real part of society, whether anyone recognizes it or not, despite any legal reference here. ] (]) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | ::Disability discrimination is a real part of society, whether anyone recognizes it or not, despite any legal reference here. ] (]) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Did you try Google Books? No, you obviously didn't. ] (] ⋅ ]) 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:52, 5 January 2011
Ableism
AfDs for this article:- Ableism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was proposed for deletion back in March 2007 and kept at that time. However, since then, it continues to appear to be a neologism with no general adoption — indeed, no adoption at all — from the legal community, of which the article claims to be the key area in which this concept is involved. (What I mean is this: I've just re-run Lexis searches for databases available to me: 0 California cases use it (even though California is a leading jurisdiction in the disability rights movement); 0 United States federal cases use it; and 0 non-California American state court cases within the last 10 years (that is the extent that the databases are available to me as far as non-California and non-federal cases are concerned) use it. Among legal journal articles available to me on Lexis (which is limited due to the package I get, but it's not a particularly small package), it's been used once in the last 10 years (Carrie Griffin Basas, "Back Rooms, Board Rooms - Reasonable Accommodation and Resistance Under the ADA, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 59 (2008)). Without adoption by the community, I think it is simply unsupported and is essentially original research. Delete (not merge) and then redirect to Disability rights movement. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Disability discrimination is a real part of society, whether anyone recognizes it or not, despite any legal reference here. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Did you try Google Books? No, you obviously didn't. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)