Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-new wave

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 07:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: it admits to being a neologism in the second section: was used in a small blurb in People magazine...It has time soon enough to be picked up by the public. -Splash 05:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless anybody has actually heard any member of any of the bands mentioned in the article have referred to their music as such. Then I'll change my vote. Hamster Sandwich 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Save Hot Hot Heat is considered neo-new wave. Google it. See this link [[1]].
• Keep. The term has some currency; googling for "neo-new wave" yields 4000 hits. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Vote revised below. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant to say: only about 450 of them are unique. Which suggests that some outlet(s) uses it loads and it isn't much around elsewhere. -Splash 05:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. I'm changing my vote to delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep being of recent coinage doesn't seem like enough to delete it. It otherwise looks like a OK article. Splash, can you point me to some policies, guidelines, or discussions that talk about neologisms. I might change my mind.Delete Thank you, Splash. Those are quite convincing; the article doesn't say "Neo-new wave is a style of music", it says "Neo-new wave is the name of a style of music." We don't include articles on names for things, we include articles on concepts. JesseW 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most importantly, there is Wikipedia:Neologism, but WP:NOT a dictionary and WINAD also help. There is also WP:NOR, which helps to cover made-up terms: you can't make them up and then put them in WP, because they'd be original dicdefs. Also, the whole 'neologism' thing is used extensively in VfD; take a look through any day's debate, and you'll see neologisms being deleted because they are neologisms. Oh, and don't be fooled by a few hundred Googles; any made-up word can collect that many — we don't want it unless it has so much attention is is encyclopedic at the moment: becoming so in future means the word should only get its article in future, and then only if it has more to say than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems like a term on its way up, in popularity terms. Would be prepared to change my vote if Wikipedia is shown to have strict rules on neologisms, but I see no objection to them once they reach this level of popularity. Agentsoo 10:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • See my response above: we don't keep neologism until they are established parts of language and only then if their article is more than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've heard my hipster friends call bands "neo-new wave", but god knows my hipster friends are only notable for their odd fashion sense, and not for being barometers of English usage. If the term ever becomes widespread, re-create the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New wave music and redirect. — mendel ☎ 19:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary music genres. Note that exactly zero of the bands listed as examples use this term in their own articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. Ashmodai 10:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The page was just blanked by its original author. --Icelight 22:19, July 28, 2005 (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.