Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. When looking at this and the previous AfD, there seems to be only the issue of when a neologism crosses then line. The comparison presented in the (combined) discussion is that to "metrosexual". If we compare the profiles of these words, it becomes apparent that there are several orders of magnitude between them, but more importantly it's easy to find metrosexual in use in multiple reliable sources. Determining the "notability" of a neologism directly by looking at how many people are using it on livejournal, as most of the evidence provided asks us to do, is borderline original research. We're thus left with the testimony of several editors and a single link to a review, a thin gruel with wich to feed the beast of verification requirements. If and when this term enters into common parlance and citations are avialable, it can be restored.
brenneman{L} 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual

edit

Neologism created by a blogger. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn neologism and WP:WINAD. Esquizombi 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Esquizombi. No Guru 18:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This word, while of recent online coinage has penetrated to the real world -- as can be attested to by I, and others who voted on the previous AfD, that first heard this word offline. As to online penetration, some 500 users on Livejournal list it in their interests, along with at a glance about 50 users on the popular dating site OKCupid and almost 150 members of the sapiosexual "tribe" on tribe.net. Obviously, a small but growing population of people is using this word, far beyond those connected to the original LiveJournal post. If the current article is not sufficient, it could be potentially expanded to include more detail on the spread of the word after its coining. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, neologism, WP:WINAD. Oliver Keenan 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism and an ugly word to boot. —Keenan Pepper 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Weak keep. —Keenan Pepper 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I came across the word offline and searched it on Wikipedia - the entry serves a purpose, and a wiktionary listing wouldn't do it justice. dramatic 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google returns 780 hits for the word, the first few of which are urban dictionary, wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. Still a neologism. JoshuaZ 07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - for all the reasons that were discussed in the first time around - barely three months's ago - this is a word in current online and offline usage. Just because someone didn't suceed in forcing through a deletion before doesn't mean it should come back quite so quickly imho. --Vamp:Willow 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary: There is useful information here that does not exist in the Wiktionary definition. Either this article should be kept so that this infomation remains available, or should be folded into the Wiktionary article. Also, second VampWillow's sentiment about the recentness of the first deletion attempt. --Black Paladin 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Todfox. Obviously it is more than just a "neologism created by a blogger"—the article has citations of its use by others. Making the reason more accurate by saying, "Neologism created by a blogger and adopted by others" would actually make an argument for keeping. Whether it's non-notable is debatable (and I come down on the "notable" side, clearly), but the original nominator's reason is inapplicable and so is insufficient reason to delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have just edited the article to place the concept as the subject of the first sentence, rather than the neologism. (I believe that an article whose title can refer to both a concept and a term should be about the concept, since mere terminology is less notable than actual real ideas.) Obviously the article needs more about the concept to balance all the information on the term as a neologism. (This is me making sure I'm up-front and not appearing to "sneak" the changes in during the AfD.) — Saxifrage ✎ 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Saxifrage (who also just made some excellent improvements to the article we are voting on here). Blogs have reached the point where they affect politics and culture on a large scale, spreading memes, ideas, or philosophies and even creating new ones and breaking stories. In light of this, the very fact that this word originates in a blog is not a reason to delete. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 23:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have made some more changes to this article, extending the changes made by Saxifrage. I think this is clearly more than just a dictionary entry now. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the cited sources in the article meet WP:V. Does someone have a better source for the word? JoshuaZ 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on how they fail WP:V? If not here, then at the article Talk page? (I ask because a clearly-defined problem is easier to solve.) — Saxifrage ✎ 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, they are all essentially personal websites which are frowned upon, and a personals website hardly constitutes a reliable source which fact-checks in any way. JoshuaZ 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that they are the primary sources for the topic, it's not really possible for them to fact-check anything. I think verifiability might not be exactly the issue you're alluding to—an argument for this article being original research is a more likely challenge, I should think. Am I reading your concern right? — Saxifrage ✎ 10:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yes. I need to review my wiki policies more. There is an ORy element, and certainly seems like a synthesis of information here. JoshuaZ 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it currently constitutes OR, but I know that there's can be fine line between source-based research and OR. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems informative but perhaps doesn't deserve article. Can it be moved to more appropriate place eg part of list of slang words, part of a lifestyle type article ? User:Cefas26 Mar 06
  • Strong Keep, for several reasons: As VampWillow said, it's a word in current usage, and there shouldn't be second AFD that fast. For the origin, Rock808 pointed out in the first nomination: „Blogs ARE the new media. More paper news print will be replaced with news blogs and RSS. Just because you see something on a blog doesn't mean it should be discounted. The validity should be based on amount of use/acceptance.“ And with lacking a substitute for "sapiosexual" and its popularity rising, I think the article's relevance is not only given now, but will also increase in the near future. — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Blogs may be the new media but they don't meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The policy of verifiability is necessary because „it is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide.“ However, the controversial subject is not whether the article is making unproven statements, but the relevance. And it is reasonable to measure the relevance by looking at the usage. Therefore it is not important if the word was coined in a blog or not, and it doesn’t matter if it is used in blogs or in real life, too. I cited User Rock808 because the reason for deletion (“Neologism created by a blogger”) reads as if the word would be something of minor value due to the origin. - Shantris Te'Amdoraja 06:37, 27 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sapiosexual_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1143732286"