Talk:Eight Deadly Words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, why is this phrase notable? It turns up a mere 177 google hits[1], virtually nothing for a phrase 'commonly used phrase in science fiction fandom'. --Nydas 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I got 714 when I clicked that link, Google's not a fully reliable means of measuring notability like this since their algorithm is mainly concerned with finding the best results to put in the first couple of pages. The phrase is 15 years old and still in common usage (among SF writers too, not just the fans) so IMO it's shown it's got sufficient staying power to warrant an entry. Bryan 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If Google's not reliable for measuring the notability of a SF phrase, then what is? The references don't assert notability, and are usenet posts to boot. --Nydas 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

References don't have to assert notability, they're only there to verify facts they're references for. The article itself asserts notability in its second line: "The phrase is commonly used in science fiction fandom." The 2003 usenet posting backs this up, note how even the original punctuation is still a matter of relatively common knowledge there. Since the reference is in this case being used to demonstrate whether something is "common knowledge" the fact that it's a usenet post doesn't seem relevant, its mere existence is what's important. I note it's made it into the group's FAQ now too, if primary sources aren't sufficient: [2]. I'll add it as a reference too. Bryan 23:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jargon used amongst a specific usenet discussion group is simply not notable enough for wikipedia. If this was a commonly used phrase amongst the SF fandom, there would be mainstream media coverage, or at least significant secondary coverage beyond the usenet itself. Even on the usenet, it doesn't have a full FAQ entry.--Nydas 06:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's always the ~700 Google hits to look through. A lot of those aren't Usenet-related, the first page of hits has a number of book reviews using it. How many and what type of references are you looking for? Bryan 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all just forums, blogs, personal websites and wikipedia mirrors, as well as unrelated 'eight deadly words' ("But we've never done it that way before", "Don't take the law into your own hands"). And of course, wikipedia is the first hit. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms seems relevant here, although it is a guideline, rather than a policy. That the phrase is used is not in doubt; it's just that I'm sceptical of its 'common usage', and by extension, its notability. And the stuff about a 'Double Dorothy' is completely unverified. As for references, articles in newspapers, magazines or respected science fiction sites would probably be OK. Ideally, they'd be about the phrase, not simply examples of the phrase being used. --Nydas 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The restricted scope of its "common usage" is defined in the article, and 15 years isn't so recent so I'm leery of calling it a neologism. I do grant the Double Dorothy thing though, I almost took it out myself back when I added that FAQ reference. How about I go to the source and ask the denizens of rec.arts.sf.written if anyone there knows of good external references? Some of the folks over there are very good at that sort of informational scavenger hunt, and Heydt herself is still a regular poster there. I'll post a query there tonight. Bryan 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw Bryan's comment at rasfw, skimmed the discussion, and am now wondering: does anyone besides Nydas object? And why does a Wikipedia article referencing a (primarily) Usenet term fall outside the pale? Pete Tillman 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "notability" is unfortunately subjective and hard to define, and there are also a variety of opinions about how "notable" something needs to be before it warrants a Wikipedia article. I think almost everyone would agree that there shouldn't be an article about a phrase that a couple of guys coined on their blog a few months back that nobody else uses, and almost evereryone would agree that there should be articles about old and common phrases like "a stitch in time saves nine", but somewhere between the two is a fuzzy border where reasonable people acting in good faith can nonetheless disagree. Although I personally think it's perfectly reasonable to have an article on this subject (rasfw is a very large and influential online forum within its field and fifteen years is longer than I've been on the Internet, I've never not known about this phrase), I can see how some might be reasonably uncomfortable with it especially if they aren't participants in SF fandom themselves. While I'll continue arguing that the article should stay even if no "dead tree" references can be found right now it would be much nicer if we could just satisfy everyone's concerns. Bryan 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree with having phrases or quotes in wikipedia unless they have some exceptional significance. But I'll leave this article alone for now. I have removed the 'double dorothy' though.--Nydas 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)