Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google twin
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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Google twin
Dubious neologism that at best should be speedily sent on its way to Wiktionary and probably ought to just be speedily sent on its way. - Iridescenti 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete kill all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 730 ghits, and they all look like fluff newspaper articles. It's either a recent neologism or recent meme, but there is no evidence that an article can be written on it. CMummert · talk 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources? Check. Abeg92contribs 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I got about 20,000 results for the term in quotes. Abeg92contribs 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the initial estimate in the top corner says 20000 but the actual number's 425, a lot of which are porn sites and most of the rest of which seem to be the same article cut-and-pasted into assorted blogs and local papers[1]. On a Google search you have to go to the last page to get the actual number of hits as the initial estimate can be wildly off. I assume the original estimate's skewed this time because there are so many hits on the word "Google" alone. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A reliable source for a neologism must do more than just use the neologism. It would have to carefully analyze the usage and history of the neologism, etc. So I could be convinced that google as a verb is a notable neologism, because I have seen such articles (and see here). Moreover, even if this were not a neologism the article would still be a dictdef. CMummert · talk 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Featured recently in a sitcom. I want to say it was How I Met Your Mother but I know that's wrong. Something on CBS I think. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I found news coverage about the phenomenon in WP:RS:[2] [3] [4]. This should be more than enough to establish notability. The article content needs work, but the subject is notable. It's not just a neologism, it's part of the human experience. Dhaluza 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please see my comment of 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) above. Just because a few articles use a neologism doesn't mean it is notable or that there is enough attributable material to write an article. CMummert · talk 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your comment, and I think your characterization of the news articles as "fluff" is a POV. The sources are otherwise considered reliable, and the stories seem to be intellectually independent. Therefore your assertion that there is no evidence that an article can be written on the subject is a self-fulfilling prophecy if you dismiss the evidence as fluff. I think your argument at bottom is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article is a poor candidate for AfD because it is something that obviously exists, and is something people can relate to. Dhaluza 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ISNOT a dictionary of neologisms. Not all news articles are fluff, but the ones being cited in this case are "human interest" stories rather than any sort of investigative journalism. Lots of things that obviously exist are not notable enough to inclusion. CMummert · talk 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't human interest the basis of notability? I think you are focusing on the word as a neologism, not the subject as a human experience. Dhaluza 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right. There are clear guidelines about notability and neologisms, but no counteracting guideline on human interest. This makes sense, because every article trivially has "human interest" to its author. CMummert · talk 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- And with three press articles specifically about this subject, it clearly meets even the disputed WP:N standard. Dhaluza 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because there are zero articles cited here about the subject of the phrase google twin. There are three articles that use the phrase as part of a human interest story about particular people. Neologisms do not become notable bcause someone uses them; they become notable because they are discussed as neologisms. For example, "google" as a verb was dicussed in the context of trademark law. Even if we found a million articles that say "I googled someone," that alone would not establish that "google" as a verb is a notable neologism. It takes an article that discusses the phrase itself rather than just using the phrase. CMummert · talk 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are taking a one-dimensional measurement of a multi-dimensional subject. Google twin is not just a neologism, it describes a human experience like Déjà vu. The news sources interview people, and describe their experiences. Articles about a word belong on Wiktionary, but articles about what the word describes belong on Wikipedia. The references show that there is sufficient material about the thing the word describes to write an encyclopedic article about the subject. Dhaluza 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because there are zero articles cited here about the subject of the phrase google twin. There are three articles that use the phrase as part of a human interest story about particular people. Neologisms do not become notable bcause someone uses them; they become notable because they are discussed as neologisms. For example, "google" as a verb was dicussed in the context of trademark law. Even if we found a million articles that say "I googled someone," that alone would not establish that "google" as a verb is a notable neologism. It takes an article that discusses the phrase itself rather than just using the phrase. CMummert · talk 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- And with three press articles specifically about this subject, it clearly meets even the disputed WP:N standard. Dhaluza 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right. There are clear guidelines about notability and neologisms, but no counteracting guideline on human interest. This makes sense, because every article trivially has "human interest" to its author. CMummert · talk 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't human interest the basis of notability? I think you are focusing on the word as a neologism, not the subject as a human experience. Dhaluza 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ISNOT a dictionary of neologisms. Not all news articles are fluff, but the ones being cited in this case are "human interest" stories rather than any sort of investigative journalism. Lots of things that obviously exist are not notable enough to inclusion. CMummert · talk 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your comment, and I think your characterization of the news articles as "fluff" is a POV. The sources are otherwise considered reliable, and the stories seem to be intellectually independent. Therefore your assertion that there is no evidence that an article can be written on the subject is a self-fulfilling prophecy if you dismiss the evidence as fluff. I think your argument at bottom is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article is a poor candidate for AfD because it is something that obviously exists, and is something people can relate to. Dhaluza 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my comment of 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) above. Just because a few articles use a neologism doesn't mean it is notable or that there is enough attributable material to write an article. CMummert · talk 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- KeepDefinately needs improvement, but I like the article. W1k13rh3nry 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have seen this term/phrase used in many reliable sources on the web. I agree that it needs improvement, but it should stay as it will become a more widely used term for this phenomenon Simonengelbert 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)— Simonengelbert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I have seen this used in popular news papers and other Web sites. Needs improvement, but is worth keeping as I do not think this a short term phenomenon Max 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dhaluza. This is not exactly a neologism per WP:NEO. I have added one of the sources noted in this AfD as an "external link" to satisfy the immediate requirement of multiple sources. I see no purpose in attempt to classify certain articles as "human interest fluff" in order to discard them. What you view as a "fluff" piece I may view as a treatise that explores the caverns of the human psyche. -- Black Falcon 22:17, 1 April 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.
