Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plameology

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. Proto///type 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plameology

This article contains nothing but speculation and false comments. The term Plameology only brings up 191 references of use on Google. All of these are to Wikipedia and a couple left-wing blogs. --Jayzel 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Short-term if even existent internet phenomenon. Will not be notable in a couple of weeks, let alone years. Nip it in the bud. Batmanand | Talk 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; 44 unique hits without Wikipedia and no reliable sources. Melchoir 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The term was used on national television (CSPAN2) on Friday, June 9th, by no less than former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wife of outed spy Valerie Plame, during a panel discussion about the CIA leak case: "As the facts have emerged in Plamegate, thanks to the dogged investigation of members of this panel, and the other Plameologists – and I can assure you that my wife wanted to change her name to Wilson because she didn’t think that Plame was very easy to understand or remember - she had no idea that ultimately it was going to be not just well-known, but the beginning of an ‘-ologist.’” (Wilson's televised remarks are currently archived on CSPAN under "YearlyKos Convention", 6/9/06. The quote is at the 12:45 minute mark.) The word "Plameologists" was used yesterday in the title of a National Review article by reporter Byron York,[1]

While one may not like the way the article is currently written, or have problems with NPOV, or disagree with the politics of the bloggers involved, it's obvious that both the word and the Internet "Plameology" phenomenon are real. I've been tracking its increasing use on Google over the last few months. Anyone doing a Google search now will quickly see references to dozens of sites using the term, not just a "couple" of left-wing blogs (and for what it's worth, the National Review is a conservative publication, and Byron York is no left-wing blogger). Where did you get only "44 unique hits" which have nothing to do with Wikipedia? I don't get that number at all. (I see 207 current matches for "Plameology", 219 additional matches for "Plameologist", and 461 matches for "Plameologists", though none of those numbers necessarily reflects the extent of the term's use since many blog sites have only irregularly-archived comment threads. And FYI, the prominent Wilson and York quotes, footnoted above, are yet to appear in Google.)

I have made a good-faith effort to define an Internet neologism which has enjoyed increasing currency in 2005 and 2006, and which shows no sign of abating. Note that the article does not credit the views of any one Plameologist, does not recommend sites, and attempts to remain neutral on interpretation of the facts while summarizing the gist of what Plamelogists have been saying and predicting, sometimes with great accuracy, over the past few years. The suggestion that the word "[w]ill not be notable in a couple of weeks, let alone years" is colored both by partisanship and by a misunderstanding of the facts. Given that Fitzgerald's investigation remains open, and Lewis Libby will go on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Plame leak in January 2007, we're bound to see continued use of the word and more print references, such as yesterday's by the National Review. (And FYI, the non-indictment of Karl Rove after five grand jury appearances, publicized earlier this week by Rove's own lawyer, by no means ends an investigation which has always been larger than Rove. In fact, Rove's known role leaking Plame's CIA identity to reporter Matt Cooper, and his subsequent non-indictment after facing what many believe was considerable legal jeopardy, has led many Plameologists — who number among their ranks former prosecutors with significant experience with grand juries and complex conspiracy cases — to speculate that Rove is cooperating with an investigation that has quietly advanced to higher levels, and which will use Rove as a witness.[2][3] A number of Plameologists said this before Monday's announcement from Rove's lawyer.[4])

If the investigation fizzles, it will at least have been a notable (if transient) historical term, pointing to a particularly feverish moment in U.S. political/media/Internet culture. But for now, please keep. Sandover 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please do not trot out the censorship canard. You are required to WP:Assume good faith. You gave no reputable source as suggested per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Also, even if the neologism was in wide use (which it isn't), it is nothing but a fancy term for a small group of people who do nothing but speculate -- and speculation is forbidden on Wikipedia per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lastly, as this is just a random made-up word with no possibilty for expansion into an encyclopedic article it fails the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary test. --Jayzel 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Right off, I'll say it's not fair to criticize me for a transition edit, since I deleted the "censorship canard" on my own. I won't defend it because I don't stand by it.

Second, I do assume good faith, but I must admit my good faith has been recently shaken by a crazy situation on the Laura Ingraham page, which seems to be occupied by a wild-eyed Laura fan (already banned once) and what appears to be his newly-minted sockpuppet sidekick. I'm exhausted and wary from a pointless epic battle over — get this — whether Laura spent six or eight days in Iraq in February 2006. (For the record, her website clearly states that February 5th is her first day in Iraq, and February 10th is her last day in Iraq.) I'm wondering if an awful spirit has taken over Wikipedia, and you'll see why if you look at the Talk page. So I apologize. That's the context.

Also, there seems to be an upturn of trolls on the Plameology-related threads, possibly because of the CSPAN2 broadcast on Friday (repeated several times over the weekend) in which Joe Wilson himself said the word "Plameologists". Wilson implicitly acknowledged the term's wide currency, and sang the praises of his 1000+ audience's collective Plameology skills. I'm pretty sure the event was billed early on as a Plameology Panel. It was delivered before a political blogger convention in Las Vegas with more than 100 media members present.The CSPAN video is definitely worth a look (go to "YearlyKos Convention" 6/9/06).

Please know I wrote the article in good faith. On reading some of your recommended links, however, I must admit (at this tired hour) that I'm more convinced that the article should be deleted than not. But I don't want to believe that, so I reserve the right to revisit the issue tomorrow, if you don't mind. A couple hours ago, I thought I might be able to revise the article to conform it to all Wikipedia standards. Maybe I will think so again tomorrow when I'm less sleepy-headed. Sandover 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism that lacks notability. Deli nk 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete per nom.--Auger Martel 17:43, 16 June 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.