Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yak shaving (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 of the debate was no consensus. The final tally was 12/8 in favor of deletion (60%), but many of the keep votes were only for process (because the renomination came too soon) and not related to the content. I say give RoySmith, Bcordes and others time to find references and check again in a month or two. howcheng {chat} 19:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yak shaving

The article begins with the statement that this is a neologism. Neologisms fit squarely into Delete territory. karmafist 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, for the same reasons as the first time around. What's changed in the past couple of weeks to make it worth bringing up again? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the article cites a 1992 source. If a phrase invented in 1992 deserves to be deleted as a neologism, then perhaps Wikipedia deserves the same fate? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This reminds of me that old saying "If a tree fell in the forest with nobody there, would it make a sound?" If something is a neologism in 1992, and nobody knows or cares about it for over a decade, does that make it neological in the etymological sense? Absolutely. karmafist 19:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that nobody knows or cares about the word; I hear it used commonly in the engineering and IT industries. I can't point you at a source that defines its origins or claims that it's a word in the common parlance, but is that a reasonable standard to hold any word to? Bcordes 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It also states "there is little relation between that episode and the current meaning of the word", making the date of said reference a non-factor. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:47, Dec. 24, 2005
  • Speedy Keep - Otherwise what's the point of getting a consensus in the AfD process? Endomion 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Not enough people were there in the last afd to get a strong enough consensus, given the non-notability of this subject. karmafist 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - not enough time has past since the previous debate. Blackcats 07:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it only got two keep votes last time. Delete as a neologism. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Movementarian 13:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The 1992 reference to Ren and Stimpy is completely unrelated. The article's only external link is to a private e-mail dated 2000. I won't go against a two-week-old keep, but I fail to see how this merits more than a move to Wikitionary. Durova 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete. This is beyond meritless. It was nominated for deletion two weeks ago... does that mean it's not fair to AfD it now because it's been weakened and isn't up to fighting strength? This article is about a made-up term and will never develop beyond the point it is at right now. JDoorjam 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Positively delete this clear and present neologism. The subject's greatest potential claim to notability is Ren & Stimpy, which it even admits is not relevant. First AFD should have been kept open re-listed to gain a more thorough consensus. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:47, Dec. 24, 2005
  • Delete. The previous AfD had too few voters to consider it consensus. There are no verifiable sources for this neologism. Carbonite | Talk 19:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. per nom.Obina 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a dic def. Can't become an article. If they don't want it, just delete. Even if a word is used in an episode of a tv show once, doesn't mean it warrants a separate entry. It still needs to be verifiably in use by a large group of people and even then it's just a dictionary definition. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: it was submitted to Wikitionary last time. I don't know if they wanted it, though. -- Kjkolb 08:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best this is a dicdef and at worst it is non-notable. Andrew Levine 01:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn-dicdef. --Daveb 04:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. -- JJay 05:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn-dicdef. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Apostrophe 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep amusing. KI 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been relisted last time for lack of input. It's either a dicdef (i.e. not for WP) or a self-consciously coined neologism (i.e. not for WP). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 18:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be a feeling here that neologisms are inherently not wikipedia material. I suspect people who are thinking that way are mis-interpreting Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. That policy rejects Original research (including the coining of neologisms). Note the use of the word coining. If I were to create hyperdeletionism, that would be coining a neologism, because I would be creating a new word. Yak shaving is not that; the phrase already existed, the article is simply documenting its history and use. Shall we bring to AfD all 57 entries in Category:Neologisms? I've added a few references to the article, selected from the 68,000 google hits. Most of them are blogs and random webzines; they may not be the OED, but it should be sufficient to satisfy the verifiability argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For me, the problem is the neo part. A newly coined phrase (i.e. neologism) is of unknown and unproven significance. Once it is widely used, assuming it is not a dicdef, there is no real problem with inclusion in, say, the list of Internet slang. The number of neologisms which are independently encyclopaedic is, in my view, small; Wikipedia is not as far as I can tell a mirror of either the urban dictionary or FOLDOC. Also remember that verifiability in Wikipedia terms means verifiable from reputable sources (explicitly not blogs).- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I can see not trusting a blog to verify facts, but what we're trying to verify is that the phrase is in common use. If it's being used on blogs, it's being used. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP! - almost 40,000 google hits; mentioned in Jargon file. If this expression is spread only on the internet, why not add it to the category of computer jargon. --Anthony Ivanoff 03:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 05:21, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Provisional Keep. I'd rather not see this phrase completely disappear from Wikipedia. If it belongs on a list of slang somewhere, then let's figure out which one it belongs on and move it. I agree that the article will probably not expand significantly beyond its current form. I do not agree that it is a neologism which was coined by the creation of this article; this phrase has been around and in usage for a significant amount of time. Bcordes 15:39, 27 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.