Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strummer's Law

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 delete. No good sources demonstrating the notability of the neologism — one is about something different, and another is a Wikipedia mirror — and arguments about its importance to the comic are not substantiated and seem to contradict each other.-Wafulz 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strummer's Law

Strummer's Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Apparent neologism. This term has a mighty ~100 ghits, and most of those are Wikipedia, its mirrors, and people citing Wikipedia. The rest seem to be forums and blogs. Someguy1221 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if it were notable, it's not really worthy of a Wikipedia article, is it? It's basically the restatement of someone else's opinion, eh? Calgary 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. maybe merge it with Dorothy Gambrell's article. Trusilver 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, punchline of one comic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Dorothy Gambrell Will ^(talk) 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Dorothy Gambrell, or into Cat and Girl if the term was coined within the comic. Krychek 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original PRODer per WP:NEO. Not worth merging because it's not an important aspect of Cat and Girl; like Dhartung says, it's just the punchline to one comic. -- rynne 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Neologism argument is somewhat specious. WP:NEO cautions about verifiability and original research -- neither of which applies here since this is a humorous phrase, and the original source is undeniably known. From WP:NEO itself: Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. None of these reasons applies in this case. Krychek 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But from the first line: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary. From my perspective, WP:NOR certainly applies: "Strummer's Law" is presented as a sociological theory which is not acknowledged by any reliable sources except for the comic where it was coined. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Hence the numerous votes to merge. No one is arguing that it should be kept as its own article. Changing the context via a merge would answer your neologism concerns while retaining an important indicator of the comic's tone and content matter. Krychek 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Dorothy Gambrell. Even though it's only one comic it's an interesting idea which is worth thinking about. I know I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment when I read it. Does it have a parallel in real sociology? I'd bet it does. --Misaf-Keru 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. If there's an equivalent theory in sociology, it should be discussed under its real name, not attributed (by a webcomic character) to a guy who died years before the term was coined. And if there's not an equivalent theory in sociology, well, WP:NOR doesn't differentiate for how interesting the original research is.. -- rynne 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply It isn't original research, it's a quote. And if there is an equivalent theory, it should be linked to from whichever article we merge it into. And do you know that Joe Strummer didn't coin it himself? I don't, but it's possible that the webcomic writer did know. And, finally, I don't like your tone. I was only sharing on a talk page that I thought it was interesting. It wasn't meant as a reason to merge the articles. I'm sorry if I haven't learned the rules yet, but it's no reason for veiled insults. --Misaf-Keru 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply. I assumed that the statement following your vote was a justification of your vote. I meant no veiled or unveiled personal insult, so I apologize. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Cat and Girl. It's one of the central ideas of the comic, and it's not like the article couldn't stand some expansion. --Gwern (contribs) 02:32 29 June 2007 (GMT)
• Merge into Cat and Girl or Dorothy Gambrell, but ideally simply pick one and make the rest portals to that article. Could also be linked from the punk rock entry, esp. near the beginning of paragraph 3 of section 5.4 ... this may also give it a chance for greater visibility and thus more informed debate may be had by more folks. It is an interesting and original enough thought to avoid deletion without better research or reason, at any rate, but doesn't deserve its own entry as much as to be included in (an)other(s). Jonaspi 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Jonaspi
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Cat and Girl. Relatively central idea of the comic, and that article could do with some expansion itself. OkamiItto 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Just because an expression is new doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. How old does something have to be before it gets in wikipedia? 5 minutes, 5 months, 5 years, 50? --Nyxxxx 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It gets it's own article when it's notable and verifiable, and doesn't simply belong in another article. Someguy1221 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable in that it was published by an outside source. It is notable in that I believe you'll find it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/archives/DEC05/FILM/wildeast.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/strummer-s-law Sorry I don't know how to wikify things. --Nyxxxx 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first of the above links states "Strummer's Law" as "No input, no output"---certainly a completely different meaning than Cat and Girl's definition? -- rynne 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Dorothy Gambrell or Cat and Girl. Though it may not stand on its own as a Wikipedia article, as an idea it does have merit and could be of interest to people unfamiliar with the comic. I would vote to keep the article as-is except that it's in clear violation of policy. A shame, really. 24.19.42.84 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Cat and Girl - Demonstrates an important aspect of the style and philosophy of the comic, though not substantial enough for its own entry. DevOhm ^Talk 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Compare to Gary Larsen's "Thagomizer". This may not have come into broad common use yet, but has 112 google hits so far, and seems to have some legs. It should stand and be rechecked in six months to see if it is still in use.

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.