Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interweb

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

Basically a dictionary definition. The list of uses is beyond trivial, and what little information there is on the origin of the term can either be transwiki'd to Wiktionary or merged (if necessary) to Internet. Powers T 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Just so everyone knows, WP:TRIV is a style guideline, not a content guideline. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if there are citations for any of the OR. The article is attempting to detail the history of the phrase, which would be okay. I wouldn't call the usage history section a trivia section; they're trying to write a chronology here; the problem is, it's all OR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I beat teh interweb. The end guy is hard. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if possible, otherwise Delete BoL (Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Baleete or however you spell that. Trivia, original research, lack of available sources, unencyclopedic, Numberwanged... (sorry, it's late and I'm actin goofy). Seriously, this is mostly original research and dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Denoobify mah intarweb. OR, V, an N issues. Celarnor Talk to me 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Started sourcing it. The issues with this article are not insoluble.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As far as I know, works of fiction can serve as primary sources for citations. If you have seen a TV show, movie, read a novel, or played a video game... then you are allowed to cite the actual work of fiction as your source, as long as you are not providing an original interpretation of the plot. I see none of that happening here except for "quite possibly the first occurence of the term" which isn't that much of a stretch to assume and could be amended to say "first occurence of the term in popular culture." Trivia does not equal OR. If you think this article is trivia then say it, don't label it as OR. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be simply that some people are unaware of the WP:PSTS portion of WP:NOR which points out that describing the contents of a primary source is not "original research". Or maybe it's that the definition and origin given of the term interweb was viewed as original research -- yet it was correct and is now sourced.--Father Goose (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It also may be possible that some people are unaware of the WP:SYN portion of WP:NOR. The OR is a question of synthesis. Even if every single one of those uses is verifiable, they serve no purpose but to demonstrate that it's a term with widespread use in popular culture. You need an actual source for that -- a conglomeration of primary sources doesn't suffice there.
Also, please point out exactly where the origin of the term is sourced. In the Simpsons book? A book on the Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker culture by any stretch of the imagination -- the only thing the two have in common is that they both peaked in the 90's. So, yes, the claim about the origins is still unsourced. - Revolving Bugbear 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why people keep misinterpreting WP:SYN in this manner. It prohibits combining one source with another to misrepresent what the first one says; it doesn't prohibit making an accurate summarizing description of multiple sources. As to whether or not the Simpsons book is reliable, an accurate claim is an accurate claim.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim that "an accurate claim is an accurate claim" shows a blatant disregard for policy. Wikipedia is not in the business of truth, it is in the business of verifiability. Verifiability means being claimed in a reliable source. A book on the Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker culture. To claim otherwise is absurd.
And you are correct that SYN does not prevent a summarizing of multiple primary sources, but it does prohibit doing so to advance a point that is not supported by secondary sources. That's original research, quite obviously. There is no secondary source supporting what is advanced by the slew of primary sources, so it is original research. - Revolving Bugbear 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we keep talking about OR, but I'd need to know what part(s) of the article you think are OR. Right now our discussion is rather abstract. Also, I'm not arguing whether the Simpsons book is an authority on hacker culture; you'll note I only provided it as a citation for the opening paragraph (general description) and for the Simpsons-specific claim. Additional sources will have to be found to back up the details contained in the article's second paragraph -- although the Simpsons source does affirm its general thrust: that the term originated in online circles. A little bit of actual "original research" also affirms it: a search of Usenet posts shows it being used in the late 90s in this manner, and the earliest mentions are from mid-1994 in connection with Babylon 5 -- again, consistent with what the article says. This is what I mean about accuracy; personal opinion or crackpottery is unverifiable OR, to be sure, but if a given statement is apparently consistent with reality, I'm willing to not declare it OR or unverifiable, and just give it some time for a source to turn up.
My regard for -- and command of -- policy is deeper than you realize.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you reread my original post, you'll see what I think is OR. The list of uses is synthesis -- a collection of primary sources used to advance a secondary point. And the origin is unsourced. Also, the uses you note there are indeed verifiable, but they do not speak to the history of the term any further than "it is at least as old as X." Anything else is OR.
As for "just give it some time for a source to turn up" ...:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed
From WP:V. If all unsourced information is removed from this article, then all that's left is a dicdef and a list of uses. If you have sources for the relevant information, or you have other pertinent information with sources, please add them. Otherwise, this article misses the bar by a long shot. - Revolving Bugbear 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, only source cited is a trivial, passing mention. It's simply a neologism, even if a popular one. It's already on Wiktionary, so no need for a transwiki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, and his otters. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep recognizable word and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on neologisms or terms of which there are many such published works. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well accepted parody term in popular culture. The sources are enough to demonstrate that. collecting what lies obvipous isnt OR, but a way to build articles. DGG (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To me, the issue is not OR but rather whether this article can ever be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition. What else is there to say but "Here's what it means, and here's where it was used"? Powers T 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. Q0 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • An article to define a neologism... not our mission. Transwiki to wiktionary if it's in their mission, delete otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just as a reminder, if we merge, then we cannot delete per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, i.e. we would redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Internet slang. A dictionary definition and a list of uses. I doubt this can ever be a full-length article; if it can, please prove me wrong. - Revolving Bugbear 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep decently well cited, notable in its own right. -Drdisque (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • One reference is "decently well cited"? And notability is not at issue here; whether the subject is encyclopedic (as opposed to being limited to a dictionary entry) is. Powers T 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Firstly, it has 5 references, 4 of them just aren't formatted into the reflist. Secondly, it doesn't read like a dicdef and is substantially larger than a dicdef. I feel it is encyclopedic. -Drdisque (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (it even has some rererences) and cleanup --WhiteDragon (talk) 18:51, 17 April 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.