Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulp noir

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp noir

This article violates WP:NEO, including being unsupported by reliable sources. Jonathan F 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Usage seems wide enough. Roger Ebert's acceptance alone would at least get it close to notability. JChap (Talk) 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Delete per discussion below. JChap (Talk) 11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither of the reasons for deletion given in that section apply here. The article goes beyond merely defining the neologism (although I would like to see it go a bit farther). Also, it is not an attempt to track the emergence and use of the term itself, but provides an (admittedly brief and incomplete) treatment of the subject itself. Furthermore, it is already used by reviewers (i.e., (i) experts writing in (ii) popular media) and is thus doubly well-established and not a neologism. JChap (Talk) 13:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I meant to link to the next section, WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms, to show that the presence of "pulp noir" on the Internet, even its use by film critics (Ebert notwithstanding) is not grounds for an article on Wikipedia, which was your previous assertion. A reliable source is needed, and no one has provided proof that in Cornell Woolrich from Pulp Noir to Film Noir (the current article's main secondary source), a book about Woolrich and his writings, pulp noir means anything other than pulp fiction, in this case hardboiled crime fiction. The uses on the Internet you link to seem to reflect this: that pulp noir is hardboiled crime fiction, in literature or film, nothing more. The past and current versions of the article indeed define a new term (see WP:OR#What is excluded?), one meant to indicate a "sub-genre" of film noir, and there is no reliable source to support this. The article only finds instances on the web where the term is ascribed to something when the WP:NEO policy reads:
To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan F (talk • contribs)
  • Ahhhhhhhh-hah. The last sentence. Now I understand your objection. Perhaps explaining this in the nom would have stopped the keep votes. And although the quality of writing has improved and it is better sourced, tt is now a list of uses and thus tracks the term's emergence, rather than discusses the subject itself. Oh, well. It won't be the cruftiest thing here by a long shot. JChap (Talk) 11:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to the book to check whether it differentiates between pulp fiction and pulp noir, but the title seems rather clumsy if it doesn't (why not from ...Pulp Fiction to... rather than the ...Noir...Noir..). Perhaps somebody with the book can clear this up. Yomangani 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, have to chime in here since I am responsible for the rewrite (not the original article, I might add). First, I want to address Jonathan F's issues. You can see my Talk page for his full "review" of my edits. I removed the Renzi reference completely since it seems questionable and I admit I misinterpreted what the book is about from the excerpts I have. I have only selected readings from the book, back from a film class I had. If someone has the whole book, maybe they can add it back later if any of it applies to this article. I also rewrote the lead paragraph to more accurately summerize the context of this term as I found it in the other references. As for Jonathan F's other point, I accept it as a valid argument but I disagree that this is a neologism to begin with. It is for this AfD to decide that point, and I still recommend keeping the article. I think "neologism" implies that the term is specialized within a certain community or interest group, but my references clearly indicate widespread usage across different communities and in reliable media. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep is not a neologism Tjc 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Keep looks to be WP:OR with the definitions of Pulp and Noir and if that bit is dropped I'd say it fails WP:NEO. I might switch to a 'Keep' if it got a bit of cleanup (but I don't have time to do it myself). Yomangani 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup looks good, so I've changed my opinion as I said I would - still like to see the definitions of Pulp and Noir removed or referenced though. Yomangani 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed some more of the unreferenced stuff that I meant to get on the first round. The opening paragraph where pulp noir is defined is derived from the footnoted source. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You got the bit I meant. Nice work. Yomangani 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a neologism. Needs cleanup. Bacchiad 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article and added references. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Citations are in place. Zos 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely. Plenty of sources now if there weren't to start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 14 July 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.