User talk:J.J.Sagnella/Neologisms as a Speedy Deletion Category

I have to diagree with this. There may be a place for them in Wiktionary, depending on a case by case basis, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But for the more neologistic ones, I have mentioned in my article, which are common, surely you must agree they should go to urban dictionary and not here? J.J.Sagnella

Well neologism means "A word or phrase which has recently been coined; a new word or phrase," so it probably fits under nonsense. Prodego ^talk 14:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree neos belong someplace else, and I think db-neo would be the best catagory. Nonsense, patent nonsense, that's not what most neologism articles end up being. They look good, even if they don't belong here. So, not nonsense. Niki Whimbrel 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I first try WP:PROD to deal with neologisms but it only works about half of the time, given that deprodding is so easy. They rarely if ever have a snowball's chance of surviving through AfD, which begs the question, why bring them there? I've seen many neologisms speedied, but I don't think this is technically appropriate under the current WP:CSD. CSD-G1 defines nonsense as "no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page." To be fair, most of the neologisms that are created as articles are not nonsense according to this definition. I think a new CSD for neologisms is appropriate if the criteria can be precisely defined. For example, what does "recently coined" mean? Editors will have differing opinions. Perhaps one criteria could be if it has not been contained in urbandictionary.com for a specific minimum period of time it could be speedied. Another could be if it is unverifiable in the mainstream media. I think a precise criteria for a new db-neo would have to be devised to remove most of the discretion that is involved in deciding issues on a "case by case basis." Accurizer 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this discussion is still active but what about if csd A4 was expanded to that failure to assert notability could be applied to neologisms. That way not all neologisms would instantly qualify only obviously made up and/or used by an individual and or tiny group.

or perhaps we need a whole new criterion csd A9 maybe?

On another note is there a way of getting this discussion included on the centralised discussion box that comes up on the afd pages. It would attract a lot more attention and discussion I think if it were more accessible that way. Ydam 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is still active, I'm still watching this page. In all honesty as long as there is a definite thing in a speedy tag which clearly tells someone what to do with a neologism, I'll be happy. I feel to get more pucblicity to the idea your idea of listing it on the centralised discussion box would be good. J.J.Sagnella 12:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Any idea of how to go about that? Ydam 12:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't. I don't even know where it is. J.J.Sagnella 13:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

well the box is here Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion but I think the place to propose its addition is either here Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion or here Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Template_log Ydam 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

After having a look around I think we would be better off raising this over at the village pump before we add it to that template, so I'm just off to do exactly that. Ydam 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

J.J.--I don't think there are any tags that tell people what I think should be done with neologisms--wikipedia finds that a personal attack. Heh, good luck on this, still. Niki Whimbrel 17:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. J.J.Sagnella 18:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

After I posted to this page on June 6, I realized this idea probably had been discussed before and I went searching in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. The most recent discussion occurred three months ago, here: [1] The general consensus seemed to be that WP:PROD was adequate for handling neologisms. I'm not sure I agree. Since deprodding is so easy, these still end up on AfD quite frequently. However, I've found better success when I post the {{PRODWarning}} template to the contributor's talk page, with an additional statement along these lines:

Before deciding to remove the template, however, it would be best if you read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, as it appears the aticle you created is a neologism and these are usually deleted from Wikipedia.

In many cases, this seems to dissuade the contributor from deprodding it. Do you think there is any value to formalizing something like this in a new WP:UTM template? If this step does not yield the results we are seeking, perhaps then the community would be more receptive to a new WP:CSD for neologisms. Accurizer 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though a UTM would help, as you said they usually fall through and AFD happens. For this reason I still feel that it should be a new CSD. It is an idea which couldn't fail J.J.Sagnella 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Saw this at the pump. This is a really bad idea, IMO. Neologisms should be reviewed by as many eyes as possible, and often can be put toward Wiktionary, which speedying elimiantes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about neologisms with low google hits. All I'm asking is permission to either edit the db-nonsense template or make a new one so people know what to do with neologisms. J.J.Sagnella 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Google hits are a poor barometer of notability or usage. Why the rush to delete them? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as you know there are 3 ways of deleting something:

• Straight admin deletion-very unlikely
• speedy- very good
• prod- good but ususally void by anons or new users removing tags
• afd- not good, putting it on afd will give the neologism publicity for being considered on the greatest enyclopedia on earth.

So really as you can see, speedy is the best option J.J.Sagnella 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know that you have such faith in your fellow editors that you can't trust them to review an AfD regarding a neoligism properly. I still think the best option is prod/AfD, and getting the most eyes possible looking at the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not catching my drift. When an AFD is made, it doesn't get deleted. That old afd will be mammoth publicity, even if it failed for the noinnotable word. Neologisms are worth no spotlight in Wikipedia, not even a mention at afd. J.J.Sagnella 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm catching your drift. Some neoligisms get deleted, others do not. None of them should be speedied, and if you think one is kept that shouldn't have been, there's always DRV. We don't just delete things becuase they might cause publicity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But there definitely are a significant amount of people who agree to expanding db-nonsense or adding db-neo. J.J.Sagnella 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how significant it is. I encourage you to bring it to the talk page at WP:CSD, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand J.J. correctly, I think he is referring to the project page, which is forever available, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomachuck. This in and of itself could give notablity to the neologism, whereas with speedy deletions (and prods) there will be no project page. I'm not sure this is a compelling argument. Even if someone happened upon the project page through a Google search, it indicates the outcome of the discussion as not meeting Wikipedia standards. Accurizer 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd broadly support the proposal for another category for speedy deletion, after finding many new pages which are near enough something made up in school one day. There's nothing wrong with covering neologisms so long as there is at least something to say about them, i.e. a new associated idea. I think the proposal is more about avoiding Wikipedia becoming 'a free billboard to post this useless advertisement', i.e. target neologisms which (a) make no claim to notability; (b) would not belong on Wikipiedia even if notable, although they might on Wiktionary; (c) are in some way promotional.

BTW I'm not suggesting speedying, but what should be done with e.g. Autonumerology? --22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean it up? Source it? Prod it? Disambig it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For me the main problem with making neologisms speedy is that it's difficult using Google alone to distinguish a highly specialised term still largely limited to the paper literature from one that's invented by its contributor. Moreover, sometimes articles don't have a good name already in wide use, and so we just give them a name that makes sense. An example might be French cuisine. Finally, often neologisms just need to be moved, not deleted. I think it's so often not a clear-cut call that it's not objective enough for CSD. Deco 08:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Deco here - I've seen things that looked to me like neologisms but when I tried to prove it, found that they had been in use for centuries. An example is the two word phrase Maine Highlands. When SuggestBot first sent me to the article, it looked like this [2]; essentially "a name adopted in the 1990s" to attract tourists. But research on Google Book (not Google Web) showed a prior, related, meaning used for over a century, with enough reliable sources to support an article. I've seen on AFD other things nominated as a neologism that were kept because Google Scholar, Google Book, and Google News research showed that they were article worthy. These appear to fall into the "I've never heard of it, must be a neologism" category of nomination. Prodding, or AFDing, allows time to research. Speedying doesn't. We should not use speedy deletion for conditions that require research. We already have WP:NEO as a guideline on how to handle neologisms. GRBerry 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have to agree with Deco. CSDs are limited to situations which are clearly and immediately identifiable with no research. Some of these situations deserve some real thought. Remember that the CSD case would define a very broad class of "all alleged neologisms", not merely the few egregious examples. That makes it a question for AFD, not for the speedy-deletion process. Yes, a little bit of pure garbage will get some unintentional "advertising" during the AFD discussion but that's a small price. And, of course, if you have clear and convincing evidence that it was a bad-faith contribution, it can be speedy-deleted as vandalism. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction - Most CSDs are limited to situations that are identifiable without research. Some, such as A7, are not. This proposal would not be without prior precedent, but it also would be poor policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A7 requires only looking at the article. If the article contains a claim of notability, it is not eligible for speedy deletion under this critera. The speedy deleting admin doesn't have to do any searching off Wikipedia. I don't think looking at the article is enough to qualify as reasearch. Your mileage may differ. However, the work to determine if something is a neologism for which there are no reliable sources available is clearly a different degree of work, as it requires more than looking at the article. A more limited version that only included neologism that fail to cite sources would only require the deleting admin to look at the article - if there are any citations, then it would fail that criteria. That would lower the research threshold to the same level as A7. It would also limit the reach of the criteria. There are other ways of limiting the research to the A7 level, but all that I've thought of would also limit the reach of the criteria. GRBerry 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this is primarily a proposal to introduce a new speedy deletion criteria, I recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Read this before proposing new criteria and also moving the discussion to that talk page. GRBerry 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This policy would not be appropriate for speedy deletion. With all of the other speedy deletion criteria, the deleting administrator can be unequivocably certain that the article does not belong. There is no doubt when an article consists of "alsjdfksdf", "Super-cats are like regular cats only better", "My name is Bill and I am awesome. I hate John because he is a meanie", or duplications of deleted article, etc. that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A single person is capable of making that decision, without doubt, and they can make that decision without researching, or going anywhere outside of Wikipedia. A single person, however, is not capable of deciding whether an article marked db-neologism is, in fact, a neologism. Even if he does a Google search, there may be mounds of reliable evidence that the word exists and is in common usage in some particular field. That evidence needs at least a prod, where an article contributor has more time oppose it and provide the evidence. —Centrx→talk 03:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

However, on second thought, there are articles that almost explicitly state "I made this up" or "A wackydoodleburger is a kind of person". There is the case where not only are they neologisms, but that even assuming the unlikely case that they were not neologism, they would still never be more than dictionary definitions. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)