Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subvertising

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subvertising

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

Subvertising is neologism which is not in wide use. What is described in this article is "culture jamming," of which this is an example. Neither of the two references provided mention the word, nor indicate that the term is notable or that the items described are examples of same. In the 5+ years that this article has existed, it has not been improved nor sources added, probably because sourcing is not available. Anything worthwhile should be merged to culture jamming, and this article deleted. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was fully prepared to recommend deleting this, until Google immediately showed half a dozen books that discuss the topic in depth, and there are many news references readily available. The quote from AdBusters, a notable publication, should be properly referenced. This may have been a neologism 25 years ago, but it is a well-established concept now. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have opted for a merge to "culture jamming" but it wasn't given as an option. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When define:subvertising turns up only wikipedia as the source (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asubvertising&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), not even urban dictionary or any other semi-reliable sources google gives, you know it's a WP:Neologism. I trust define: over a normal google search that brings up anything from the dredges of the internet for words. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting concept but it isn't based on any Wikipedia rule. The definition is already in the article given in New Statesman in 2001: "Subvertising is an attempt to turn the iconography of the advertisers into a noose around their neck. If images can create a brand, they can also destroy one. A subvert is a satirical version or the defacing of an existing advert, a detournement, an inversion designed to make us forget consumerism and consider instead social or political issues." Asking it to be in one of the Google dictionaries is most likely to only have pre 1923 words since most free online dictionaries are from public ___domain sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many accepted new words turn up on define: in google, it is not google's dictionary, but a specific search parameter to only show up trusted and reliable sources. Examples of words that are definitely past 1923 are: [1], [2], [3]. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except most of those are recursive links, linking back to Wikipedia and Wiktionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, because voting is polarising. I will say no confidence instead. The relevant policy is, of course, WP:WINAD since it is not a neologism. It is essentially an expanded dicdef with examples. Why not mention it in context in an article like advertising or propaganda? One or two sentences in another article would take care of this. Oh, WP:Synth probably applies as well. This is the kind of stuff that Wikipedia does poorly and Encyclopedia Dramatica and its spinoff WhatPort80 and its ilk like "Know Your Meme" do better. Personally, the article annoys me, because I feel like I'm being manipulated, which I resent, and it gives me a headache. WP:SOAPBOX probably applies too. Here's the bottom line: I would never recommend that anyone read this article to get info on the topic, and I wouldn't mind it being deleted because nothing of value would be lost. However, if it is going to wreak havoc on other articles because crestfallen writers of this one want to add the material to them, let it stand. This is the kind of stuff that makes me lose faith in humanity. Can't a reasonable, thinking person recognize "subvertising" for what it is? Perhaps giving it a name and codifying it here defeat the whole purpose of it. PBF1974 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subvertising is more specific than culture jamming, as it describes a tactic rather than an overall philosophy or goal. It is also more specific than graffiti and street art. It describes a particular type of subversive activity done for a variety of reasons, ranging from parody to political expression. Could possibly be merged with stub article Billboard Liberation Front.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every word that has similar meanings has specific nuances and connotations that make the slightly different. Not something new that would be a great sign of notability in my opinion. (Water is wet) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:51, 10 December 2010 (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.