Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exburb

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 Delete. - Bobet 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exburb

The article readily and proudly states that this is a neologism derived from another neologism. Delete as—you guessed it—a neologism. JDoorjam Talk 15:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well argued nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC

[edit] FALSE (in reply)

An entirely false premise from the outset. It holds that any neologism is invalid (or a more commonly cited line of reasoning, that any additions to the collective phraseology are somehow self aggrandizing in nature and without applicable merit.)

Exburb is an entirely valid phrase labeling a structure of pattern migration that didn’t exist until recently. Furthermore, it’s status as a neologism is entirely reliant on ones own involvement in the relevant academic pantheons. Those involved in urban planning or the various human sciences are well aware of the term in spite of it’s relative obscurity amongst the public at large.

If exburb is to be deleted, than so shall be exurb, one of the most commonly cited components of the centricity of dwelling patterns. Wikipedia has the ability to remain on the cutting edge of the collective lexicon by virtue of it's open addition procedures.

Your position is akin to a linguistic xenophobia that maintains that anything new must be invalid by virtue of being new. While it may be new to you (and shockingly, Wikipedia too) it isn't new amongst those who are involved with the study of such things.

I agree that in many cases, neologisms are invalid. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shizzle

In this case, it most definitely isn't invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.26.19.116 (talk • contribs)

• Delete exurb has been used for a long time and seems to overlap the term exburb, borderline protologism. Eivind 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for that speech. "A structure of pattern migration that didn't exist until recently"? I think this term didn't exist until you made it up. Delete as original research. And if it's relatively obscure, it's probably not fit for Wikipedia anyway. Grandmasterka 19:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Er, wha? Anyway, delete as per Grandmasterka. Sandstein 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- shocking, I know, but one angry rant out of 1000 has to convince someone, eh? — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep On one hand, it's a neologism. Yet on the other hand, a google search reveals suprisingly quite a few hits. For that reason, I'm voting on keep. J.J.Sagnella 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I got 170 hits when I googled it, all of which seemed synonymous with "exurb"... to which perhaps this should be redirected? JDoorjam Talk 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect All the google search results I seem to get seem to be simply misspellings of 'exurb'. KWH 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article lacks verifiable sources and as such is indistinguishable from original research. Sliggy 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Get It, Others Don't

I'll refrain from casting my own vote since i'm the one who penned the article and it must be obvious as to where I stand.

I wish I made it up. If I did, I would probably own the domain for it (which I just checked, and is taken by someone). To say that exburb overlaps with exurb is akin to saying that tread and retread are the same thing, or anything else where the basic logical construct is altered by virtue of a letter or a prefix is the same as it's parent phrase.

The specificity of exburb in no way negates it's applicability or validity. I'm sure there are a panoply of medical terms on wikipedia that you or I wouldn't know from a hole in the ground yet to that particular community, the're as valid as a page on the Boston Tea Party might be to a historian. You cannot on one hand cite the reference to a neologism (exurb) in support of your claim for deletion yet come to defense of said neologism when the premise of your entire point is that any neologisms that you have yet to hear of must be invalid. As I maintained earlier. If exburb goes, than so shall exurb.

Exburbian living is particularly common in the beltway. Many formerly exburban communities (like closet communities in New York City) have since evolved into bona fide exurbs or even suburbs. Human migration is one of the most fluid and constantly changing things, and as such, the phraseology might take a little time before it leaves the confines of academia into the common lexicon.

I understand that most people don't study planning just as I know nothing about video games or those Asian Cartoon things. If someone were to post a phrase native to those areas of interest, if I were the sort who were inclined to vote for deletion for anything that I didn't understand, I might take such a position too.

Let it be known that taking such a position is incorrect and if that thinking (I'll refrain from calling it "logic" as "logic" it ain't) were applied universally across this site, about 3/4 of it would be gone.

[edit] Nope

• Comment: You misunderstood my comment. Things on Wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable through secondary sources (pretty easy for all "Asian Cartoon things".) If you can provide a source that shows that the term is commonly used in planning as you describe, I would change my opinion. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong here. (The links in my previous comment are to applicable pages on WP policy.) Grandmasterka 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And that kind of tone certainly doesn't help convince me. Grandmasterka 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Tell ya what. Since you feel bold enough and consider yourself sufficiently qualified to not only "comment" but vote for actual deletion, then i'll post a simple challenge. Everyone has a college of some kind local to them. Most of these have a Human Studies department, of which there will often times be a planning or urban studies professor.

Call him up and ask him or her what's a commonly used phrase to the communities that are outer lying to the exurbs yet still service the central metro area.

This isn't a matter of "research" as there isn't anything here that's quantifiable no more than you could justify the shizzle other than by abstract reference. The word exburb is indeed a recent addition to the lexicon in spite of you personally being out of the loop. The point of contention here is the validity of said word. You are saying it's invalid. I would ask what field you work that affords you a perspective into the common phraseology used daily by the people who study this stuff day in and day out?

There is nothing more offensive than getting advice on field-specific linguistics or phrases by an IT guy or a video game programmer who maybe took a relevant one credit class in college 6 or 7 years ago.

My desire to "convince" someone like you is about nil. You have already displayed your ignorance by virtue of your position, thus I have no desire to educate ignorant people. I spend too many hours during the work day doing that to waste my time with it here.

The internet allows you the oppurtunity to naysay by virtue of casting a vote for deletion. It allows small and underqualified people "the power" to have a voice even though their qualifications to speak are none. Your qualifications to comment here (I would wager) are non-existant. You used a flimsy, blanket logical premise and applied it incorerctly to this word.

In short, we have is a petty and ignorant language xenophobe. THAT is not the wiki concept.

With that said, I would like to vote for deletion as well and it's my article.

This whole Wiki concept, while very clever, fails in it's most essential precepts. You cannot have valid information without vetting, but vetting isn't a matter of "public vote". It's peer review. You cannot allow unqualified individuals to impact those who are qualified just because they can adfford a computer and an internet connection and "have an opinion". Valid information comes from field-specific men and women who study and research the topic as a matter of their lifes work and is in turn reviewed by their peers in the same field. It is not a matter of "consensus" nor is it a matter of "public opinion".

What we have here is akin to the "internet public" voting on the techniques a doctor might use for a heart surgery. Anyone can vote, majority opinions might go one way or another, but few are qualified to comment in spite of their seemingly endless desire to do so.

• Delete, no prejudice against redirect to Exurb. I am a professional land-use planner. "Exurb" is a legit concept & word. However, I have never encountered "Exburb" (or "Exoburb") as a separate concept. Google Scholar gets two hits, both of which seem to describe the same concept. Can a reference for this new concept be provided (preferably to the APA's Planning magazine - I am have a suscription)? --maclean25 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sliggy and maclean25; some of the keep arguments sound reasonable, but there isn't a single reference in the article. Melchoir 05:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To Maclean: I don't seem to get the APA's Planning magazine so I couldn't source it from there no more than I could source exurb from that magazine. I do regularly steal a colleagues quarterly copy of JAPA, and I can't source exurb or exburb in that either. The ability or lack thereof to cite a peripheral source when the scope is limited to a single magazine is fairly absurd.

I am quite confident that the "exburb" concept is very regional in nature, existing only in areas where the demography affords it an opportunity to exist, thus a planner from an area without any exburbs to speak of might not be up on the cutting edge of the colloquy. For example, you won't find any "exburbs" in areas that are suburbanized 100 miles out from the main urban center. They exist in some Metro area corridors where the transit times are within reason. Jacksonville, Florida is a community well known for "exoburbs"- suburbs of the exburbs- as is Atlanta Georgia. There are quite a few in Texas as well. Of course, now everyone who lives in Florida, Texas or Georgia will confidently chime in and say that at their job as a dump truck operator, they've never heard the word "exoburb" before.

As an aside, you work in the field of land use planning? I have colleagues all around the country in that field. Might I ask what area you are in? I knew it was only a matter of time before someone chimed in claiming to be in the field yet disagreed with the term. Enter the basic invalidity of the "internet expert".

• I figured it was a regional thing. Unfortunately, that may not be enough for Wikipedia, which works with Wikipedia:Verifiability as a core policy. If this concept can be cited to a reliable source then it will probably get kept. If not, it will probably get deleted. The deletion is not forever, just until it can cited and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In the mean time there are many other planning-related articles to build upon: Category:Urban studies and planning (help yourself). On your side note, I work as a rural land use planner for a government in northern British Columbia, mostly dealing with agricultural subdivisions and non-farm uses, as well as the normal zoning stuff. --maclean25 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To Maclean: I'm actually very much OK with the article being deleted as I know that in due time, it will be back. I am correct about "exburb" today just as I will be when it returns, whenever it may be. Unfortunately, when someone else makes an entry for it, there is no doubt in my mind it will face a similar degree of unfounded opposition (as there are always nay-sayers for anything, no matter how valid, and they're far more common than the truly qualified) I now understand that the concept of this site is not to remain on the cutting edge of anything, but rather to catalogue things that can be quantified with a certain threshold of google hits, or, as "common knowledge" with a great emphasis on "common". We aren't talking about original research here with the word exburb. It's a simple addition to the lexicon that is unknown by more people than there are those who know it. I guess this entry and it's inclusion or deletion really comes down to the most fundamental philosophy of this website. But hey, look on the bright side. At least we all have a shizzle entry to reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.19.116 (talk • contribs)

• • Shizzle has cross-references. Exburb has one red link. Exburb has 197 Google hits; shizzle has 2.5 million. Fo' shizzle "shizzle" has an article. I mean, look, if you want low-hanging fruit for a "then why not delete article X" argument, try an article like ass worship. Shizzle's got pretty strong, verifiable roots. Except even an anti-ass-worship argument doesn't get to the point: if everyone here were a land use planner, we wouldn't need references. But we're not, as you've so, ahem, politely pointed out. So we need citations. If it's so commonly used, c'maahn, you gotta be able to find some source for it in the context you use, right? Allll we're asking for is a few citations. JDoorjam Talk 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To JDoorjam: Your own position keeps shifting.

First, your case for deletion had to do with anything you classify as a neologism is invalid by sole virtue of being a neologism. Now, well, golly, neologisms are valid so long as they can be sourced through a certain degree of google hits. The basic logic (laugh) of your position is that validity is predicated on google hits which is just plain dumb. Google is no friend to regional specificity, nor highly specific topical matters. For example, a regional phrase for a touchdown scored at the Meadowlands arena is "Stomping on Hoffa" derived from the urban myth that the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa is supposedly encased in the end zone at that arena. Would you believe that not a SINGLE google hit came up for "Stomping On Hoffa", "Stompin On Hoffa" Stepping On Hoffa" or any variants thereof. In spite of googles inability to catalogue this regional colloquialism, it's heard about every ten seconds in that area when a game is being played. An entirely valid regional "saying", not one single google hit. I am sorry but your case for deletion is very, very weak. It basically holds that anything new is invalid so long as you personally haven’t heard of it or it doesn’t meet a certain threshold of google hits. This site is not an extension of google. It’s a consortium of knowledge from many different spectrums, including those that you don’t know or understand.

• So what you're asking is that we have to swallow anything you give us just because you say it's notable? In elementary school I learned to cite sources when I wrote papers, in order to prove that what I was writing was not made up and it was not being copied directly from another source. The same concepts apply here. I can make anything notable if all I have to do is to say it's notable. Nobody is buying your latest "logical" arguments, which you keep making after you've already said you wanted this deleted.

• • And an apology to me would really help matters. I was not trying to attack you earlier, I was trying to tell you what Maclean25 told you better than I did. Grandmasterka 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or redirect to exurb as legitimate typo. The case for deleting may be weak according to the author's tirades, but the case for keeping is even weaker due to his lack of desire to provide reasonable and timely verification of any sort. I'm not even going to bother watching this, so save yourself the trouble of writing a paragraph to explain why I've never heard this term in my career as a dump truck operator. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:18, 7 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.