Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping the couch 2

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 per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "We've kept articles that are worse than this one" is a spectacularly unpersuasive argument, by the way. Nandesuka 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the couch

"Jumping the couch" has only gained notability because of the notability of Tom Cruise and the couch incident, as well as the notability of Urban Dictionary, who coined the term. I know the term has been referenced by several reliable websites, but there is no evidence of the term being in common usage in everyday speech/writing, as are some other pop culture neologisms such as metrosexual. Until we see this neologism clearly being used by many people (not just listed on websites as one of the coolest slang phrases of the year), I don't think it should have its own article. A brief mention in the Tom Cruise page, along with the couch incident, is enough. --Schzmo 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism. Kafziel 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what little facts there are into the Tom Cruise article and then add a redirect in case anybody searches it. Lankybugger 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can't think of a better entry to Delete, and thanks to the person who suggested it. Bigturtle 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tom Cruise Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No one advances any real argument for deletion. WilyD 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes we did. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Kafziel 13:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you'll read that, you'll find that it doesn't apply in this case. Specifically, because there are multiple, reliable independant sources. So no, no one has offered any argument for deletion. WilyD 13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I was looking at the (redundant) external links section and missed the references section that actually links to pages discussing the term. I'd say it's still pretty close, though, as the source for the MSN article is a slang dictionary (which are somewhat less than highly respected in the field of research) and the other is a self-published source. Kafziel 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
        • They're not A+ sources, I agree, but they're still reliable enough. WilyD 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Enough for you, not enough for me. I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, and all I ask is the same respect in return. If you disagree, that's okay. Kafziel 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
            • The MSNBC one, at least, is good enough for WP:RS - my own feelings don't enter into it. WilyD 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
              • But their source is a slang dictionary. Personal interpretation always enters into this kind of thing, because WP:RS is not a blanket policy. It's up to the community to make the final determination about reliability, and for my part (and consensus often upholds this) slang dictionaries don't hold water. Kafziel 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                • They still have editorial controls at the like - their source being a slang dictionary (or at least, their mentioned source) is not germane to the issue. It acquires the "endorsement" of a major news organisation during the process, making it reliable. Slang dictionaries are sometimes reliable, but many are not (i.e. Urban Dictionary allows users to submit original content. But a reliable publisher publishing a slang dictionary, or a peer reviewed paper on slang would still cut mustard.) WilyD 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                • But not only is it a neologism, it's a protologism. This term has not even been used (in casual speech/writing) by anyone yet. If we don't know how people will use or apply this term, what purpose does this serve other than a slang dicdef? --Schzmo 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article should not be deleted. It has become a popular phrase and describes an exact behaviour.
• Delete. If in the future it gains a wider usage such as "Jumping the shark" for example the article can be written at that time. Mr Snrub 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • • keepits notable, i dont think anyone can say this is not a notable incidant, plus it's something i think people would look upQrc2006 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It should be kept because it was an event of public notoriety. People who don´t understand the term, here they can know it´s origin.
• Delete - The event was definitely notable, but this is about the invented TERM "jumping the couch" not the actual event. I can invent the term "dangle the kid" (meaning a stupid thing to do) for Michael Jackson's notable "events" but that doesn't make the invented term notable. Time will/should tell whether this neologism sticks around. - Ektar 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect to Celebrity tantrum with a mention of Tom Cruise in a subsection. It doesn't seem like its actually that related to Jumping the Shark. Desertsky85451 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; we've kept crappier articles than this with even fewer sources. Kinitawowi 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mike f 21:45, 6 September 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.