Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracketology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. John254 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bracketology

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

"Bracketology" is a fake word created by Joe Lunardi and ESPN solely for their marketing. It is not "the process" of "predicting the field of the NCAA Basketball tournament" nor is it "the" process of doing that for any other tournament.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasDawg (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 March 2008

  • A Google search would produce similar results for countless other non-words that aren't notable and don't merit or have Wikipedia entries. -- TexasDawg (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, here is an article about two math professors who researched the subject and then wrote about it in the New York Times. Here is a book about the subject. Here is an economics essay on the subject. As I stated above, this concept has morphed beyond ESPN's original creation. KnightLago (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The numerous articles that discuss this seem to refer to a similar, if not identical, process in sports competitions. Even if it was a fake word created at some point, it now has a wider, more broad meaning now. Celarnor Talk to me 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, neologism with plenty of secondary source coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per KnightLago. Also, it seems somewhat poor form to me to describe an article in an AfD nomination and then edit the article to coincide with that description. Maxamegalon2000 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep ... per the NYT, bracketology is defined clearly in Wikipedia:
Nowhere is the growth of the bracket's prestige more evident than with the proliferation of bracketology, a concept defined in Wikipedia, not Webster's.
It is no longer enough to wait for the field to be announced and fill in the bracket with predicted winners. It is now sport to spend the regular season predicting which teams will win bids to the tournament, how they will be seeded and where they will play. source
How ironic if it were not to be found in Wikipedia. Calwatch (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Has anyone looked at WP:NEOLOGISM? --Sharkface217 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. "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." I believe multiple articles about it, an article by scholars, and a book qualifies. Celarnor Talk to me 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The proposal for deletion is an agenda-related movement by a person who is outwardly anti-establishment. Frivolous, agenda-driven.
  • Weakish keep This could be better. But It's O. K. Mm40 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed with Calwatch in the topic subject. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:21 AM US EDT Mar 2 2008
  • Keep. The word is no more real or fake than any other word used in language today. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:21, 23 March 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.