Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling (2nd nomination)

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The result was keep/withdrawn nomination (bad faith). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

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

Disemvowel is not defined in any published dictionary: [1]. I also checked the OED, M3, The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992) and couldn't find it. Google Book search gives 1 result. I tried to add a note to the entry about the word being rare and not a proper term for the phenomenon (cf. WP:NEO), but was reverted. This entry should either be renamed or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary and in the interest of accuracy. A name that a linguist would use to describe it would be vowel elision or vowel telescoping. We are hurting our credibility by telling readers that this is a proper name for the phenomenon. I dread to think of one of our readers using this term in a thesis. And let's not forget issues of notability, which is clearly lacking in this case.--Richard Maxwell 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling

• Keep. AFD is not clean-up. If you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping, click on one of those links. And I'm trying to figure out this "fear" that someone will use it in a thesis: anyone relying upon ANY encyclopedia, even Britannica, as support in a thesis is already going to get in trouble with his or her thesis advisor. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, I have to wonder why Richard Maxwell would expect to find any Internet-related terms in two 1992 print sources (The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics). And what were the publication dates of the other authorities he used, I have to wonder? --Calton | Talk 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I actually checked a two-volume Encyclopedia of Linguistics from 2005: [2]. The OED CD-ROM is from 2002, and as you can see here, it's not in the unabridged Merriam-Webster. (The website says so if it is and offers a free trial.)

  By the way, you mentioned above that the entry should be renamed instead of deleted, but that's not going to happen. All of my edits are being reverted. You just reverted my last edit now. How do you resolve that contradiction?--Richard Maxwell 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I said nothing at all -- zip, zero, nada, zil, null set -- about renaming anything. I said that if you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping -- which "disemvoweling" isn't, no more than it's a dessert topping or floor wax, no matter you try to force the definitions to fit -- click on one of those links write about Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping where they belong instead of your original-research attempts to insert said material into Disemvoweling. All your edits are being reverted for the simple reason that they're NOT about disemvoweling. Clear? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move to a better name, or redirect if an article on the subject already exists. I presume "disemvoweling" is meant to be humourous (I got half a chuckle out of it, never having heard it before); given the number of Google hits (11k+), this could clearly be a search term; the best outcome is that the user gets redirected to the proper name of the phenomenon. As for your dispute with the other editor of the page, AfD is not RFC. cab 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nominator fails to cite a valid reason for deletion. Because the article is not a dictionary entry, why does it matter that the article's title doesn't appear in a dictionary? The article is about a concept, which is known by a jargon name, not about the word itself. The article is also not about linguistics, so I fail to see why what a linguist would call the technique is even relevant. JulesH 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty good point, kind of like claiming a particular bull is actually a cow then saying you must get rid of it because it won't give milk. --Calton | Talk 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, term is in the Jargon File, generally considered a reliable source on computer-related slang terms, and there are other citations. The article could be improved per WP:NEO, but that's cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Nothing has changed since the last !vote, except the nominator and one other editor's attempt to describe it as if it were a term in linguistics, where it isn't used. The question as to whether the primary use is self-censorship with splats (G*d) or editorial censorship with deletions (dlt) is still open, but it appears notable and (before the quasi-linguistic additions) accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just stopped by my library and looked up the word in two gigantic slang dictionries just a few years old from Cassell and Partridge. It was nowhere to be found. If it isn't deleted, then perhaps it should be merged into "censorship," as the word appears not even to be a neologism.--Richard Maxwell 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep this is a common practice on blogs, see ten thousand google hits. The neologism rule is mainly about words and phrases with very little following, perhaps because they were invented by those writing the Wikipedia article. If all new words and phrases were banned as article titles, then we couldn't have any such article as Virginia Tech massacre. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors from the search, like this, it returns 685 hits. We are not supposed to be the source of new terms, but rather to report on them.
• Delete, per my above comment, only 635 Ghits after excluding Wikipedia mirrors. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm with Dhartung above, this is useful jargon. I happened on this entry because I was reading about the Kathy Sierra fiasco, and O'Reilly Report mentioned "disemvowelling" (two "l"s). That's pretty mainstream useage for a computer jargon term.3oranges 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, This term and practice is just one more way to claim fame in the small blogworld of sci-fi fans. Is this ever done in print? Imagine a book without vowels. What this is about is controlling Internet commenters with a Puritanical punishment. It almost always leads to the inevitible banning of those so inflicted. It'an attack weapon by cultists and nothing more. Marky48 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would you want to do it to an entire book? The use makes no sense in that context. It's a technique of self-censorship (generally used for one or two words only) or forum moderation. You might object on principle to forum moderation, but it is generally agreed to be a useful and necessary process that enables focussed, productive internet-based discussions to take place without them descending into unproductive trolling, flaming and backstabbing. While the technique did originate with SF fans, it has now spread beyond that culture and is in wide use (for example) in academic blogs that discuss the issue of intelligent design. JulesH 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, blogger neologism with no reliable sources to indicate notability or widespread usage. No, the 'Jargon file' doesn't count.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Jargon File (also published under the name The New Hacker's Dictionary, ISBN 0262680920) is generally regarded as a reliable source on computer-related jargon. Why would you discount it? Also, why do you discount the other sources that are linked in the article? Double-tongued Word Wrester Dictionary, for instance, is published by Grant Barrett, a professional etymology researcher, so counts as a reliable source per the definition at WP:V. The term has been discussed in professionally published magazines (see the link to the SFX column in the article), also. Why are these not reliable sources? JulesH 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jargon File is regarded as a reliable source? A quick look at their antiquated website shows that the criteria for entry is to e-mail the sitemasters with an entry that can be shown to be in 'live use'. A bit of spam, and you're all set to promote your neologism. The fact that they managed to publish a book eleven years ago doesn't really convince me. Is disemvoweling in it?

The disemvoweling entry at Double-tongued Word Wrestler specifically says that 'This catchword has yet to be researched', so it doesn't count as a reliable source. The SFX source is pretty light as well, just the barest of mentions in a light-hearted column about something else.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I find it amusing that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NEO uses a word that has a Wikipedia entry, and then says it should be avoided. I'm just saying, it's a circular argument. I have come across this word in many different places on the internet, but I can't say there's been a reliable source compiled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsong (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep has enough sources at a cursorry check and Primetime should absolutely not be allowed to dictate article content. Eluchil404 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note

The nominator, Richard Maxwell (talk • contribs • block log), is a sockpuppet of user Primetime (talk • contribs • block log), as proven by an RFCU. He is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. This is a bad-faith nomination and his comments should be disregarded. -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 2 May 2007 (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.