Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiotarian

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 Delete Naconkantari 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotarian

Idiotarian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism

Please see: Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To wit:

Articles on neologisms

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Reliable sources for neologisms

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: As nominator. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - clear neologism. SkierRMH,08:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - quite notable neologism: 1.4M google hits. Neologisms of such popularity are notable Alex Bakharev 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Idiodeletearian - Ghits do not make a neologism not a neologism. Especially when such ghits are from blogs. I suspect the unusually high hits are due to the fact that it's simply a merging of "idiot" and anything ending with "-arian". It's like "Democrap" or "Retardpican". --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, non-notable, obscure term not known or used outside of the warblogger subculture. Dragomiloff 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Far, far more notable and more widely used than "Fitzmas," which the nominator and his ilk would fight tooth and nail to keep (despite the fact that Fitzmas will never, ever come). Jinxmchue 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd vote to delete Fitzmas in a New York Second. Go ahead and nominate it. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agreed, Fitzmas needs to go too. As does any other use of Wikipedia to give unwarranted promotion to agenda-pushing neoblogisms whether from the left or right. Dragomiloff 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable term in widespread use in the community and worth keeping. References to this phrase on Google News Archive [1]

Google Books [2] and Google Scholar [3]. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Wooty; self-explanatory neologism, nothing more to say here. Transwiki iff Wiktionary will take it, but don't hold back on sending this to the bit-bucket. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete To quote the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." There are no reliable secondary sources mentioned in the article. GRBerry 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DICDEF--RWR8189 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nominator has asked that this article be deleted, but is defending the much less known "santorum" neologism article. This brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this nomination. Jinxmchue 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Keep" voter/commenter Jinxmchue has voted against keeping "santorum"; which brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this comment. WP:AGF, and all that, yes? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Passes muster just barely, but it clearly needs work on the sourcing. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 18:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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.