Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright

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 of the debate was disambig moved on top of Bright. The original content was moved to Bright (philosophy), which now redirects to Brights movement. Do note that the decision to move the original content is not binding, and may be undone if necessary or consensus wills it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright

Delete contested prod. Admitted neologism whose author wishes to promote.The Brights movement appears notable and it may be that this neologism is gaining traction so AFD discussion is worthwhile --Porturology 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete It's a protologism by Richard Dawkins, and a protologism that has by itself been the focus of substantial media coverage, eg in the Guardian. This in itself might make the word notable. Otherwise, redirect to Dawkins. Sandstein 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict after nomination was expanded) Then by all means redirect to Brights movement. Sandstein 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Sandstein. This term has gained some traction and is a likely search term (where brights movement is less likely) so redirect to the main article. Gwernol 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect It stops being a neologism when it's in common use, and Dawkins has enough people using it that it probably qualifies. I agree that the parent article about the movement seems to be the correct place for this to get linked to and there don't need to be two separate articles. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

*Redirect per above.. JoshuaZ 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per GrahamN. JoshuaZ 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect. As someone who might be considered almost a "bright", I actually find the term somewhat offensive and presumptuous, and I think a lot of "brights" have backed off the use of the term for that reason. That said, it is a somewhat notable term. Haikupoet 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain how finding a term offensive is a reason not to have an article on the topic? (or to have an article only on the movement)? Mikker ... 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Esquizombi 01:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Users arguing against my proposal to move brights movement (or bright (movement) as it was then called) to bright pointed out, correctly, that "the article is about the movement for the word "bright", not about the concept it describes". So where is the article about the concept it describes? You can't have it both ways. It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other. If you lot are really determined for some obscure reason to prevent an article about the concept of "bright" from existing under the title "bright", then how about moving it to bright (person) something like that? Whatever the result of this vote, the need remains for two separate articles about the two separate subjects, bright (the concept) and brights movement (the lobbying organisation). It makes as much sense to redirect bright to brights movement as to redirect gay to Stonewall. GrahamN 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please cite a source for your assertion. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other." - Is "nonsense" the new word for "common sense"? The term and the movement are intimately linked. They should be merged into a single article covering both the movement and the neologism the movement seeks to propagate (an agenda Wikipedia editors are attempting to further with this unnecessary page-division).
  • This argument would be reasonable if The Brights restricted themselves to promoting the use of the word "bright". But they don't. They have launched lobbying campaigns on quite a variety of tangential "rights" issues. I wish they wouldn't. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "as to redirect gay to Stonewall." - Faulty analogy. Stonewall (UK) neither invented nor popularized the term "gay". "Gay" is not a neologism being propagated by an organization called "the Gays". If it was, "gay" and the organization based on it would certainly merit a single article together until "gay" became noteworthy enough for its own article. Even this analogy, however, is problematic because "gay" sometimes means "male homosexual", making it a non-exact synonym for homosexuality. Bright is thus much closer to naturalism (philosophy) than "gay" is to its earlier synonyms. -Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally false analogies, much worse than the one provided by Graham above. The example of the term being used in a recent book establishes enough notability for there to be one article on the matter (as opposed to none whatsoever), not for there to be two. The concept/word "bright" is to the movement "Bright" as the concept/word "Christianity" is to the movement "Christianity". Arguing that "bright" is to "Bright" as "Christianity" is to "Jesus" is patently absurd, both in the figurative and literal sense. In the literal sense, Bright is not a person. In the figurative sense, Bright and bright are not clearly-distinct (they're only distinguished by a technicality) nor clearly-noteworthy (both are very borderline). Your examples are rhetoric, not reason. -Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was responding to JoshuaZ's suggestion that bright be redirected to Richard Dawkins. And, ummm, the correct analogy is: bright is to bright (movement) as Christianity is to organisations that promote Christianity (e.g. churches of various types, missionary organisations etc.). So if you insist on being positively Talmudic, I'll rephrase: "Keep Obviously. Well, that, or turn Christianity into a disamb page linking to (among other things) Roman Catholic, Protestantism etc." The facts are these: there is an organisation that promotes the use of the term "bright". We should have an article on that. Then there is the CONCEPT of being a bright (which, despite your unsourced assertion) DOESN'T simply mean naturalism (philosophy). We should have an article about this as well. Whether we name the article bright (philosophy) and turn bright into a disambig or keep the status quo, I don't care. Mikker ... 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps your latter suggestion is the best. Rather than keep bright as it is, in it's confusing state as to what "bright" really describes, we should rename the current "Bright" article to become a bright (philosophy) and make bright a disambiguation. At that instance, it would compromise by ensuring an article about both the movement and actual philosophy, but still be able to differentiate between it and other forms of bright. I think Silence makes a pretty good justification why the word "bright" needs to be the front disambiguation page below. Would there be any objections to this? Oscabat 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with a disambiguation page: Bright (disambiguation) should be moved to Bright because there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word (the only real candidate, brightness, is already at a different page, so just moving the disambig page to the default is what will probably benefit the vast majority of readers the most). In lieu of that, strong delete and merge into bright movement. The concept of bright is not noteworthy because it's a neologism (no appearance in any established dictionaries, and barely any in reputable news organizations or publications) synonym of philosophical naturalism; at best, it merits a subsection or paragraph of the aforementioned more established term. The movement or organization of Brights, however, which is pretty much solely responsible for propagating the usage of "bright" as a self-identification, is noteworthy. The admin who closes this vote should keep in mind that most, if not all, of the users supporting the division between the movement "Bright" and the concept "bright" are self-identified brights themselves. A split like this would be a kin to atheists splitting the atheism article into one for the "lack-of-theism" definition and another for the "rejection/denial-of-theism" definition, rather than doing what they should (and are) and treating the topic in a single article. And atheism is much more noteworthy (and complex, spanning dozens of pages) than bright (which is only a page or two long, even merged), so a split is even less justified for this concept/movement (and the distinction between the two isn't always obvious) than it would be for atheism. (Note that the previous example was not meant to suggest that atheists are brights, or even vice versa; it was just an example.) Having two articles in this case is beyond unacceptable: it's an example of Wikipedia's corrosive systemic bias towards recent subcultures with a significant Internet base. -Silence 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you can cite a respectable source that says that in the source's opinion bright is just a synonym for naturalism (philosophy), then please add that interesting snippet to one or both articles. You say "there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word". Frankly, that's just wishful thinking on your part. No serious user of an encyclopaedia looks up things they already know about, (such as bright in the sense of "light" or "clever"). People use an encyclopaedia to look things up that they haven't come across before. Some very influential thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins have taken recently to using the word "bright" in this sense, and it is extremely likely that people, when they come accross this unfamiliar term, will come to wikipedia to look it up. I've asked on Talk:brights movement for suggestions of realistic scenarios where a serious user of this encyclopaedia would type "bright" into the search box, when they were looking for an article about anything other than the philosophical outlook (or the band). Nobody's been able to come up with even one. I also asked for an example of an occasion when it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). Again, nobody's come up with even one. Sorry if it doesn't suit your agenda, but what you are saying is just plain wrong. GrahamN 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That is exactly what I did - I searched "bright" in Wikipedia because Dennett use it. A.I.K. 24 March 2006
  • Replace with disambiguation per above. Royboycrashfan 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with disambiguation. This is an ambiguous word, as Bright (disambiguation) proves. A disambiguation page will not confuse anyone and will not violate any Wikipedia guideline or policy that I'm aware of. What a disambiguation page will do is allow the debates and refinements about new uses of bright to continue, because those are clearly important discussions to some of the Wikipedia user base. But in the mean time, searching for "bright" will leave all articles about old and new meanings of bright immediately visible to all. --Ds13 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Make disambig page This is a notable phenomenon, but there's no way it's the primary meaning of the word "bright". Merge any non-redundant content into Brights movement, which of course should be listed on the bright dab page. --Trovatore 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment actually maybe better would be to redirect bright to brightness, which is its primary meaning, and put a line at the top of the latter saying "Bright redirects here" and pointing to the dab page. That would be more in line with standard WP policies. --Trovatore 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Modify my remarks I hadn't appreciated how much of the debate was about keeping the current content at bright separate from brights movement. I have no strong objection to them being separate articles; it's OK with me if the current bright is moved to, say, bright (philosophy) or whatever. But it shouldn't stay at bright; that strikes me as a blatant attempt to use WP to push a linguistic change. --Trovatore 16:23, 21 March 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.