Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up-is-downism
Up-is-downism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
- Nominated for speedy by User:Bill Thayer (sp?), but not a speedy candidate. Nevertheless, should go. This is why we need some sort of managed deletion process. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, Delete. (I'm still learning the ropes here; why is this grossly POV/neologism not speedy?) — Bill 19:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) and your spelling's fine, by the way!
- Because, if you click on the linked term candidate for speedy deletion, it takes you to a policy page which lists the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are very narrow, and properly so, because there is relatively little public transparency for such deletions. Once an article is deleted, a non-sysop cannot read its content to judge whether it should have been deleted or not. Read the page for yourself; basically silly and nonsensical one-liners can be speedy-deleted. As things stand, it seems to me that Up-is-downism is a) very clearly a delete (but we shall see!) and b) very clearly not a speedy-delete. Two good examples of a genuine speedy deletes are Noj and North American witchcraft, whose entire contents, respectively, are:
- See Italic text'Oxenfez'
- and
- ur all goths
- Because, if you click on the linked term candidate for speedy deletion, it takes you to a policy page which lists the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are very narrow, and properly so, because there is relatively little public transparency for such deletions. Once an article is deleted, a non-sysop cannot read its content to judge whether it should have been deleted or not. Read the page for yourself; basically silly and nonsensical one-liners can be speedy-deleted. As things stand, it seems to me that Up-is-downism is a) very clearly a delete (but we shall see!) and b) very clearly not a speedy-delete. Two good examples of a genuine speedy deletes are Noj and North American witchcraft, whose entire contents, respectively, are:
- Gotcha, thanx. (By those criteria though, Noj is just bad wikifying for a redirect to Oxenfez: so now I'm gonna contest that one!) — Bill 20:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I hate BushJr as much as the next guy, but this isn't encyclopedic. --Improv 19:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism, original essay. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Beats me why this isn't speedy, but speedy got more picky lately. IMHO we should have a faster delete process for substubs (like this one), POV titled articles (like this one), and/or marketing material. Oh, and delete. And quickly (though not speedily!) - KeithTyler 21:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. POV neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 03:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Stupid POV neologism stub. jni 08:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. While true :P , it is not NPOV. Plus the whole neologism thing. DeusExMachina 13:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not only it is a neologism, but it's almost certainly a redundant one (I'm sure there is already a word for this, though it eludes me.) - KeithTyler 19:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I'd call it Newspeak and Minitrue, but hey. I agree, of course, that we need a Managed Delete, and people who have voted "no" on it need to look again. Geogre 13:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a neologism; if you google the term, you'll see it's in fairly wide usage. I think it's worth keeping, as it's difficult to find a definition for it anywhere else; but it needs a better entry.
- Why is a definition needed? I agree that 281 Google hits on the Web, and 48 hits in Google Groups (which I regard as a better indication of what terms are in actual conversational use) means that the actual word is not the personal invention of the contributor. But that's not widespread usage, either. For what it's worth, the earliest Groups hit is in August, 18, 2003. I don't think it's possible to tell yet whether this term is really coming into wide use, and I think that as of 2004 its meaning is safely inferred from context. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia needs to be the first to define something; identifying "memes on the rise" is Wired's job, not Wikipedia's. If one of the Presidential candidates uses it in the debate tonight, then, fine, I'll change my vote. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.