Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norgs

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 of the debate was delete, discounting most of the 'keep' comments. Flowerparty■ 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norgs

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Neologism. Few hits on google for this meaning--most appear to use this word as slang for breasts. Delete, and possibly redirect to Breast. JeremyA 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn neologism, this link suggests it is completely restricted to blogs (when it's not referring to breasts). Also, FWIW, the article creator's only edit is creating this article: Carllavin's contributions. --Deville (Talk) 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have added "critical mass" [1] and "meetup" [2] if the entries did not already exist. "Norgs" has entered the language in the same way. Many of the blogs cited are read more widely than many printed products. Carl—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.199.102 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Perhaps it's a neologism, but it's a neologism coined to describe a new and evolving phenomenon. In his original post, Will Bunch wrote "Hence, the 'norg.' 'Norg' because we need to lose our old identity with one dying medium, newspapers, and stress our most valuable commodity, the one that we truly own, and that is news . . . without the paper. Thus, we must now be news organizations, or 'norgs.'" Before this entry is deleted as a neologism, I would like to know what term can be adequately substituted in its place. We -- and by "we" I mean a diverse and influential group of established journalists, new media bloggers, and community activists -- are starting a growing conversation about the future of news and the future of newspapers. I agree with Carl that critical mass has been reached, as reflected in the google search linked above. I hope that the quote from Will Bunch shows that this is not, as Deville suggests, "completely restricted to blogs." -- Tattered_Matt 19:39, 26 March 2006

Keep - The meaning of this word is changing by the moment, and elevating to a higher and useful purpose. I would think again before removing it because some Australians have used it childishly. If you insist, keep it singular: Norg. -- Daniel Rubin, the Philadelphia Inquirer/blinq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrubin (talk • contribs)

  • Delete The above two comments describe why it should not be kept. It's a new, evolving, changing word, that is not in widespread use, and what use there is, is inconsistent. Most definitely not encyclopedic. Fan1967 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fan-1967, can you clarify what you mean by "widespread use"? Where is the threshold, and how is "widespread use" measured? Tattered_Matt 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you'd draw the threshold exactly, but wherever it is, "norgs" is clearly below it. I find less than 1000 google hits, half of which seem to be about breasts. Fan1967 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is no measurable threshold, I find it hard to understand how norgs is "clearly" below it. Tattered_Matt 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say there was no threshold, I said it isn't precise. IMO, a few hundred references doesn't cut remotely qualify as "widespread". Words in common usage get tens (or hundreds) of thousands of hits. This is a new word that hasn't caught on yet, and there isn't even consensus as to what it means. Fan1967 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - While some have said the meaning of this word is changing by the moment, I would argue there is a solid definition of the word - but its implementation will change as the web changes.

"Norgs are news organizations that support "acts of journalism". This support can sometimes include legal, financial, organizational, and instuctional components in different combinations, regardless of medium. Products may include printed newspapers, websites, forums, wikis, podcasts, blogs, video, or any combination of these. As such, a Norg operates independently of format and medium, a break from how many traditional media organizations view themselves."

I've editted the Wikipedia entry to firm it up a bit - but I think Will Bunch, fairly much defined the term appropriately. It's "newness" or lack of poularity should not be a cause for deletion. Maybe for it to face Wikipedia's community for further editting - yes - as examples and implementations come along - but not deletion. -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.17.32.27 (talk • contribs)

Keep - Concerning the threshold for widespread usage, is this threshold at all influenced by the authority of those making the case for it? In other words, if the term is in heavy use by executives and veterans of the field to which it applies, how relevant is this vague threshold for the Google-ability of the word? Would it be any more legitimate if two million teenagers were using it online as a slang term? If so, maybe some are misunderstanding (or overestimating?) the legitimate purpose of this site. -- Howard Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.174.36 (talk • contribs)

Keep - This term has been used for the last half a year by established people from the main stream media and new media. This conversation has spread from blogs to the corporate boardroom. If credibility is what some are worried about, then what do managing editors, senior writers, an editorial page editor, senior IT people of two established papers in the fifth largest city in the US bring to the table? One of the founders of Entertainment Weekly? The cooperation of an Ivy League school along with the attendence of the Dean of said school? A group of the most involved and widely read bloggers from the community? Representatives from Independent Media from two cities? Among others from across the country who could not make it to the physical unconference due to scheduling conflicts. Yes this is a new term, but as Karl noted, there does exist a solid definition and ideal behind the word. It will be an organic and changing form, but the roots are firmly in place. This term should stay and continue to grow and be edited by the wiki community as the wiki is a part of the essence of the term. Dragonballyee 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a protologism, and we don't keep those here, unless they acquire widespread media attention that this term doesn't have. -Colin Kimbrell 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • protologism is defined as "A newly created word given a definition in the hope that it will be used in that sense." I would argue that what we have here is "A definition given a word by a community of experts in its domain, including members of academia, newspaper publishing, and blogging, except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet." -- Karl Martino, host of Philly Future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by kmartino (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Your statement "except it hasn't taken hold in common usage yet" is the very heart of protologism. I have to note that just about every "Keep" comment that has been posted here reinforces the fact that this word does not fit Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Fan1967 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Searching for protologism on Google finds 579 hits. Searching for "+norg +newspaper" on Google finds finds 773 hits. protologism, by your definition, is a protologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartino (talk • contribs)
Yes, which is why you won't find any article on "protologism" in Wikipedia. (There is currently a redirect from "protologism" to "neologism", being discussed for deletion presently). Henning Makholm 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that the entry for "protologism" to which I linked was on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Also note that it was under a subsection for wiki-specific jargon, which was created to help users acclimate themselves to the wiki environment. "Protologism" had an entry on Wikipedia at one time, but it was deleted.[3] -Colin Kimbrell 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Find me some print media citations (physical media, not blogs), and I might be willing to change my opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am querying now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartino (talk • contribs)
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.