Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agitainment

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agitainment

Agitainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Neologism, per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, with original research issues. Looks like some band decided to coin this word to describe their product, and it has suddenly become a genre in this article. A prior article was deleted (speedy or prodded) apparently, but the new sources don't establish much of anything. Google hits also insignificant beyond proving this is a neologism. hateless 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. From the article: "Although not yet a term in popular usage or yet to be featured in the dictionary". Pretty much the definition of a nonnotable neologism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a term I have heard and used many times, and I have seen it in print to describe some of the people mentioned above. Also I would dispute what Lifebaka says regarding "popular usuage", of course it can mean "in everyday usage" or "mainstream" and beacuse a term has not yet been picked up on or widely used does not necessarily make it a neologism. Articles have to start somewhere and I have seen many that are less notable and have fewer references that seem to make the grade, is it something to do with the subject matter? I would say it is a a term describing a distinct genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ‘Agitainment’ is a term I have not only heard on Radio to describe Mark Thomas' work but is in print and online many times to explain the music of Vortis. I have heard professional stand ups and musicians use the term retrospectively to describe past entertainers such as Andy Kaufman and Ted Chippington, so they can basically describe what is hard to categorise. This is why I put forward the notion of not only is it a real definition but it is also an important word that is actually much needed so these sometimes forgotten/ ignored artists (especially Chippington, Munnery and others who walk the fine line between performance art/ experimental artist and other) can be described succinctly and in a way others can understand and therefore may seek them out. The term 'agitainment' is a word that can give the performers on the list a footnote in history so they remain appreciated and may inspire others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesse 123 (talk • contribs) 10.23am Tuesday 15th January 2008

— Nesse 123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak delete. I copyedited a bit per WP:MOS and WP:EL. However, I tend toward delete per nom, unless editors can proof that this new word has been been described in a reliable source. Not as a trivial neologism buzz word in an entertainment media. Dekisugi (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a failed dicdef -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think if you have at least two independant sources using the same term anout wildly different expressions of the same kind of philosophy then it proves its own validty. I feel that the (at this point) incomplete list of practitioners needs to be put back up, the artists featured made the point of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both sources are quoting the band in question, Vortis, and both times the authors used scare quotes. That's nowhere close to showing that the phrase is in any type of circulation. Also, you can't vote twice. hateless 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think if you google agitainment you will find that the term is used in reference to more than just vortis (although they are the majority). I have no idea what you mean by scare votes and i wasnt attempting to vote twice but to add a further comment, i probably should have edited it into my previous comment but didnt. It seems to me that you (Hateless) believe you are some kind of authority but you are not, its a debate and your personal opinion (as mine) is not "FACT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.25.84 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (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.