Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberhubris

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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uberhubris

Neologism Chuckhoffmann 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not a this or a that, but Wikipedia is the first place I've seen any direct attempt to "define" this 'state' which I've heard persons referring to more and more frequently over the past ten years.

There's a couple of hundred entries in Google under uberhubris, and under the entry uber-hubris, several hundred more.

If not Wikipedia, then where?

I've previously heard "uberhubris" to refer to an internal state of being/mind, but have [I believe] seen it corrupted recently [probably as we turn to other languages to find our superlatives]. Jksamuels 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Urban Dictionary takes this kind of thing, but neither Wikipedia nor its dictionary counterpart Wiktionary do. Further, it's a really ugly portmonteau word, combining German with Greek. "Hubris" is already superlative: it is a pride so shocking that it outrages the gods in Greek tragedy. There was an Anglo-Saxon word along the same lines (maybe...depends on which side of a particular debate you take) in "ofermode," and other languages have their own versions. Thus, it's not really a needed word, either, except that there has been a debasement of "hubris" by people using it in a slipshod manner (which is normal). If that misuse continues for another decade or so, we may need a word to reestablish the original meaning, but not yet. Geogre 03:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, defining neologisms isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. Geogre is kindly asked to withdraw his scandalous allegation of ugliness, though. I like the kiddingly redundant superlative, the tongue-twistingness and unpronouncability, and especially the uber/ubr chime between two languages so widely differing as German and Greek. Good luck to the word, just not in its own wiki article. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: Pbbbbttt! There's a tongue twister neologism for you. Bet they don't have that at Urban Dictionary. Geogre 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (Last of the language's true defenders.)

• weak delete I like the concept, but the word is not notable enough, and it is a bit clumsy in english, so I will be surprised if catches on. If it does catch on, it is probably still more appropriate for a dictonary. If enough people vote keep to make it close, contact me and I may switch to keep, since I am generally anti-deletionist, and I believe in making allowances for minority opinion, even if it is a mere 15 or 20% minority.--Silverback 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Page Open This is my first wikidrama -- in a trial for the survival of an entry, I'm the apologist. How exciting. If it is the case that the entry is merely the definition of a neologism, and it is the case that the Wikispaces are not the 'proper' place, but Urban Dictionary IS -- then the remaining issue: Is the entry qua entry merely the definition of a neologism? Do articles ever 'grow'? Should this be changed to a 'stub'? --jksamuels 16:47, 6 December 2005 (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.