Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowclone

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowclone

Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The word gets a lot of G-hits (16,200 total; 322 of the first 1,000 unique), but I have to move for deletion 1) because the word (even as defined by the article) is a neologism coined 2.5 years ago, and 2) per WP:HOLE. -- Kicking222 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment citing WP:HOLE is a little unfortunate as "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground" is quite likely a snowclone of "I wouldn't know him from Adam" MeltBanana 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, nonsensical (or at the very least extremely hard to follow and basically without point. — NMChico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's really just a statement that there are popular phrases out there that often get spun into new variations (duh), and it tries to be fancy about it by expressing it in neo-algebraic terms. wikipediatrix 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per above reasons. SynergeticMaggot 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems well sourced beyond anything otherwise unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. This seems well sourced. It is confusing, but most of the math articles on wikipedia are way more confusing than this (I teach college statistics and even I can't understand most of them). Definitely seems notable and verifiable. Irongargoyle 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Neologisms are not acceptable Wikipedia articles. But then, Badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, but this is more than some neologism article, it has plenty of reliable sourcing and is more than just the meaning of the word. WP:NEO is about as vague as you can get as a guideline, but this article seems to surpass what's expected for deletion there. As for my habits, I can point out hundreds of articles I don't "vote" keep on, so I'm not sure if that swipe is necessary or accurate. I only "vote" keep on what I believe should be kept, not "everything." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't think that's precisely what WP:NEO says, Zoe. If neologisms are discussed as a phenomenon (and not merely used without discussion), they are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a new term, but it's been discussed or at least defined in the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as on NPR's Talk of the Nation and in a book reprinting essays from the linguistics blog in which the term first appeared. In Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms, the only two reasons given that articles on neologisms "may not be appropriate" are that they often lack reliable secondary sources, and are often no more than dictionary definitions. This goes beyond dictionary definition -- it's an article about the linguistic phenomenon the term was coined to describe -- and there are sources. Sounds like the article needs quite a bit of work to be clear to an encyclopedia audience, but that's not a reason to delete it. —Celithemis 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Doing the research, I've come to the same conclusion as Celithemis. The problems with neologisms that are relevant here are that the concepts that they embody are unverifiable and original research. The concept embodied by this neologism is verifiable (There is quite a lot of discussion of it to be found.), not original research (The concept having spread far beyond its original creator.), and there is plenty of source material to work from. However, I do wonder whether this is simply a new word for the existing concept of a cliché. ("Snowclones are the new clichés, dahling!") That's a matter of merger, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, I'd vastly prefer to see this article merged into cliché than to stand alone. wikipediatrix 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has already survived one (or was it two) AfD's and what went before AfDs already. I much agree with Celithemis. As for cliches, cliches don't change while snowclones do. Snowclones are relevant for translation-research as sometimes it is possible to translate it into a different snowclone in the target language, and if not possible the translation can't be direct and might even need a footnote. Kaleissin 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did those previous AfDs go? They didn't show up when I tagged the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis and Leflyman. hateless 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not convcinced mere novelty is the same as non-notability. For obvious reasons neologisms are going to tend to be non-notable, but then their articles can be deleted on that basis. The article itself doesn't look like original research either, it looks like it's a description of what went on at Language Log. Surely we're not going to require that every article be copied and pasted from somewhere else to avoid running afoul of WP:NOR.--♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NEO doesn't mean that newness alone is grounds for deletion, and if it does, then it needs to be considered a much more prominent Wikipedia policy. One of Wikipedia's natural advantages should be that it can document subjects more quickly than a top-down source could do. The suggestion that all newly coined terms belong in the Urban Dictionary is silly; this is a scholarly, non-humorous subject. Maybe a misunderstanding comes from the fact that some of the examples are irreverent, but these can be switched with more mainstream examples if somebody wants. Agree with the reasoning from Celithemis and Leflyman. IEdML 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.Jxg 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: it may be a neologism, but it describes a clearly defined linguistic concept which definitely has its place in modern culture, particularly on the Internet. The idea it describes ought to have a name, and 'snowclone' seems to be the accepted one. I agree that it could use a rewrite to make it simpler and easier to understand, though. Terraxos 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. —Aristotle 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. / Peter Isotalo 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I really don't see what the issue is. --Iustinus 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Now frequently used among linguists. CRCulver 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If there is some better name for the concept then rename the article, but it's a real article on a real subject. It would not be proper to delete an article for want of a name.Barticus88 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. Regarding WP:NEO, this is not a protologism, not a mere definition, and not original research, which are the reasons WP:NEO gives that a neologism-titled article may be undesirable. Rather, this is, per Barticus88, 'a real article on a real subject' that happens to have acquired a name only recently. Put it this way: Personal names may also be neologisms, but we don't exclude discussion of a person merely because said person has a name. Duh. eritain 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis. Ruakh 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis. —Nightstallion (?) 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis. — Jéioosh 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Celithemis. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a perfectly valid topic, for which "snowclone" is the most noteworthy term. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:18, 25 August 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.