Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale tail (2nd nomination)

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whale tail

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Whale tail Articles for deletion/Whale tail (2nd nomination)
Whale tail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is largely a nonnotable neologism with few sources. It is also defined twice, which is symptomatic of a poor real world consensus about the term and thus makes it a protologism. Article was created after American Dialect Society made this their "most creative word" of 2005 (please note this is not "Word of the Year"). It thus survived a deletion debate 10 days after that news broke, but no reliable sources have been created about the word since that time. Article has also served as a dumping ground for voyeuristic and invasive images of marginal utility, as seen here. Most other images in Category:Whale tail on Commons have since been deleted for privacy and personality rights violations. Article has served as an advertisement for some guy's website for most of it's useful life and, after I cleaned up all of this, the article was reduced to three sentences. I then attempted a merger, which was disputed on the talk page, but not before this tag showed up. Article should be deleted to discourage any further violation of privacy rights, as well as for being fundamentally unencyclopedic, nonnotable and neologistic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep the phrase is well-used and clearly notable. The article is sourced pretty well, considering its length. Note that the nominator had previously merged this article (along with Cleavage (breasts), Toe cleavage and Cleavage (buttocks)) to a new article without discussion. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has three sources, one to a slang dictionary (not a source), one to the American Dialect Society and one to an inadequate source about Porsches that mentions whale tail spoilers. Somebody keeps trying to insert "whale tail.com," but this is not a source, since its claims cannot be verified and it is does not undergo editorial review. Essentially this article serves as an advertisement for that website. If these are the best sources that can be found on the subject, I doubt this article would ever be anything other than an or essay. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment There's more to the article than a mere dictionary definition.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems to be just more than a dicdef, what with the "most creative' reference. I do agree that a picture is in order, however... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Thong (clothing). A nickname for the appearance of part of a type of underwear when it is not adequate concealed? Seems far too reductionistic. Edison (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support a merge to thong. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the e American Dialect Society quote.DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Too much focus upon the terminology rather than the topic so fails WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Thong (clothing)--NAHID 11:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The concept meets the notability guideline nicely. It has implications that encompass jeans, thongs and lexicology, as well as pop stars. If word has enough cultural and implications, it deserves tender loving attention, not deletion. Look at truthiness, which has gone on to become a featured article with care and attention. And, oh, BTW, I have improved the article to some extent. But, it could use a lot more help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not notable and most of the information you added either a) doesn't mention the term "whale tail" at all or b) cites an example of "whale tail" but doesn't elaborate on the term. Again, this is symptomatic of a protologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
When the term is discussed, the argument becomes - "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." When the impact of the term is discussed, the argument takes on the shape of - "they do not elaborate the term." Why create a legal dilemma when it can be plainly seen that this article deals with a fairly elaborate concept and has pretty good potentials? Besides, take a look at your original deletion reasons - (1) it could act as a magnet for voyeuristic images; (2) it served as an advertisement for some guys website; (3) it is just a "word of the year"; (4) when I cleaned it up, it was reduced to three sentences. It is worth mentioning that any article that has anything to do with matters sexual draws a lot of inappropriate images, so does any famous entertainer who has a fairly large fan bases (mostly copyvio stuff). Take notice that the "some guys website" was cited by the NY Times, establishing its notability. A simple "word of the year" meets the notability criterion better than those obscure schools and minor peers the Wikipedia is so full of. Finally, Mere cleaning up without any attempt at research and expansion can deprecate anything, but can not become an reason for merging or deleting an article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that doesn't address the primary notability concerns, which are that there are not enough reliable sources for this article to stand on its own. Trying to argue that other stuff exists doesn't solve the notability problem inherent in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aditya. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. term's selection by the American Dialect Society as its "most creative word of the year" winner was covered extensively in the media. The WP:NEO claim is completely and utterly irrelevant, only surpassed in its inexcusability for deletion by supposed "privacy rights" issues. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way, but the history of the article pretty clearly illustrates a tendency for editors to insert demeaning and degrading pictures of women in compromising positions to "illustrate" the concept. This is wrong and we should discourage any future personality rights violations through a merger into a more concrete article like "thong." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How will we prevent inappropriate pictures from being added to whatever article might be an appropriate merger target? The best way to deal with the issue is increased vigilance, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the nom's assertions about lacking reliable sources as accurate. The progression of the article, the dumping ground, the slippery slope of voyeurism and invasion are not valid reasons for deletion. We cannot control who is going to masturbate to which article at any given time. the_undertow talk 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a dictionary definition with some rather worthless commentary and is not in the slightest bit suitable for an encyclopedia. At the very best it could be redirected to Thong (clothing). 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why should a recognition by a century-old expert organization be considered ignorable? Also, why would commentaries published by some of the most notable newspapers in the world be considered worthless? And, please, explain why a cross-discipline article (i.e. fashion, linguistics and sexuality) should be directed to a fashion article? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The article contains no discussion on linguistics at all. None. A recognition that provokes a brief ha-ha mention in some media isn't particularly notable really, and is *nothing* to do with linguistics. There is barely any mention of sexuality outside of a sentence that could equally well be applied to the thong article. There is no way to make this article very much more than a WP:DICDEF and a neologism at that. Not every word that exists that has been mentioned somewhere in the press automatically becomes notable. Try taking the definition part of this to Wiktionary, and scrubbing the rest or merging itinto the other article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No linguistics? Interesting. Then, what do you make of the study of dialects? And, by the way, quite a few of the Dialect Society's nomination from that very year that nominated Whale Tail has fairly fine articles on the Wikiepdia (including podcast, truthiness and muffin top). One of these has climbed all the way up to become a Featured Article. If your're implying the study of dialects unencyclopedic, think again (BTW, it's interesting to find that you already had questions about the highly notable expert group that nominated the word). Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Muffin top isn't an article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason it isn't an article any more, Cumulus Clouds, is because YOU went round merging various random articles the other day! Thanks for pointing out Muffin top - I'd missed reverting that one. I shall go and do so now (unless, of course, you achieved consensus before merging, in which case I'll leave it alone!)-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The information in this article was identical to the information in Central obesity. You undid a redirect and replicated the material without explanation, so the page was protected to prevent this. You then went back to Central obesity, cropped the material out and created an unnecessary fork because you wanted a discussion when none was needed. I really don't appreciate you going through my history and undoing all my edits simply because you don't like them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel that's what I've done. What I had intended to do was ensure that a proper consensus was achieved before articles that had already survived the AfD process were merged.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no study of dialects that I can see in the artice. There is a nomination from an organisation that studies dialects. Not the same thing at all. The reason I tagged the article on the society was that it made no real claim to notability at the time and was completely unreferenced. Fortunately, someone has improved it. I haven't looked at the muffin top article yet, so I couldn't make a judgement on it. The other two examples you cite have been heavily discussed both as words and as phenomena. The lack of any real encyclopedic content in this article, and the apparent lack of potential for any more, leaves the article with little worth or purpose. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(reduced indent) Well, if the word was a linguistic phenomenon and was recognized as such by experts than it is a subject studied under that discipline. The lack of potential looks like a personal view. Did you do any research on the subject to come to that conclusion? Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult when somebody asks one to prove a negative. The article provides no real linguistic discussion of its subject. Surely providing some further evidence of this would be the way forward? Or at least more than a sentence or two of useful content over and above a definition? By the way, it appears that only roughly 15% of the google hits for "whale tail" (in quotes) have anything to do with this neologism. Many more are to do with the tails of whales. This is merely a remark. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to "prove a negative" until you make it an argument to advocate deletion of an article. And, well, I didn't understand your "this not about linguistics" argument at all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Aditya. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Update I have tried to develop the article, and hopefully have been able to achieve some improvement at least. It should satisfy the criterion of existence as an article (at the very least, there should not be any question about its potential to grow further). But, it still requires a heavy copy-edit (not my strength area at all). A hand there would be highly appreciated. Thank you all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seeing at it has 2 meanings with history to them and sources for them. MBisanz talk 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Many different sources and has been discussed by actual linguists so the general problem of neologisms does not exist. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (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.