Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boo radley paradigm

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.  Sandstein  17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boo radley paradigm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism; sources do not mention the topic directly, making this original research. GlassCobra 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable neologism, that is not used in any of the sources besides this self-published online essay. Note that Boo Radley paradigm was created a couple of days back by Anthony Gears (talk · contribs), and was deleted as a cut-and-paste copyvio of the that webpage. The new article was created a few hours later by new account User:StuCarter - it is no longer a copyvio, but is not notable either. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boo Radley Paradigm" is a media studies theoretical construct and of use to students of the mass media as a term to describe a phenomenon common on TV all around the world. It is possibly a neologism, but whether or not it is non-notable is dependant on many factors and depends upon how notability is accounted for. The theoretical basis for the neologism is accurate and up to date, and will become common usage in time as others use it. The previous deletion of the article was done due to copyright issues whilst Abecedare agrtees this is no longer an issue. Notablity was accepted for the previous entry. I have entered the term as a neutral. StuCarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — StuCarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment This ... I feel this has been done before because television and viewers like unusual things, can it be merged into anything related to Television? --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the purpose, this is a neologism, which should not be here. An interesting concept, no less, and certainly correct. However, as Stu points out above, there is speculation that it "will become common usage in time" - side note to this is that we are not a crystal ball. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to simply be a newly-coined term for "schadenfreude", as applied to contemporary popular culture. As an aside, the schadenfreude article is in a pretty awful state, being largely a dictionary definition with some random instances of when the word has been used in literature and on TV. I would urge those interested in this subject to develop that into a half-way decent encyclopedia article rather than create an article about one researcher's idiosyncratic name for this concept. As another aside, I'm rather surprised that the article doesn't even say where this neologism comes from. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as neologism/original research. I'm unable to find any evidence that this term has been used outside of Wikipedia. Robofish (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WngLdr34 - I have stated on another discussion page that it may be advisable to re-title the page as this clearly is a neologism. I do believe it highlights something about Mass Media and reality TV that is not dealt with anywhere else and that coining a term for it is an appropriate thing to do or we are left with a burdensome and over-wordy explanation everytime we wish to refer to the concept.

Dennis the Tiger - The term is currently in use though not as yet in physical print. The UK’s Media Magazine currently has an article on the subject under review.

Phil – This term of "schadenfreude" (satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune) is certainly very relevant but it is not at all the same thing as the Boo Radley Paradigm. There has always been "schadenfreude" as part of popular entertainment but the Boo Radley concept is about “reality TV” and especially the “hyper-reality” achieved by media producers exploiting vulnerable people. It is the financial gains and hegemonic concepts behind the use of this very particular "schadenfreude" in terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory that is being developed and no other term has been created to cover this particular arena. It is related to Media studies in particular.

Robofish - The term is referenced to a website so it has been used outside of Wikipedia.

At the end of the day the article may well be inappropriate since new thought is obviously not what Wikipedia is about and it is true to say the term may well fall out of ‘popular’ (if admittedly fairly limited) usage and not be picked up by academia and the popular press. It was originally put on by the author of the term as a way of sharing the idea but was removed since it appeared on his website. I re-presented the idea as a friend and colleague who teaches this term to students and thought others interested in the media may benefit from its inclusion. All the best, Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.