Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horrendous Space Kablooie
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 and merge. Consensus does not exist as exactly where to merge it though, discussion for that needs to happen on the talkpage. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Horrendous Space Kablooie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable neologism, derived from a single joke in a single comic strip. Impossible to achieve anything beyond dicdef status. If all this can be is just a statement of the definition, rather than an exploration of its cultural ramifications, then it has no place on this project. Perhaps Wiktionary. Chardish (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Thagomizer, it's not likely this is going to enter scientific or general usage anytime soon.Keep. I wasn't aware that it had already done so. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, notable per references in the Daily Telegraph, New York Times, Princeton Weekly Review (describes use by an astrophysicist in his lectures), this course outline, and the book "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science". I've also updated the article to reflect this new information. --Ckatzchatspy 09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of times a neologism has been used, or a list of examples of its use, may establish notability, but it doesn't establish context. We are to avoid articles on neologisms unless we can do more than merely provide a definition. See the relevant policy pages (that and WP:DICDEF) for more info. - Chardish (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I think we have established both notability and context. The mainstream media references demonstrate use of the term in discussions about astronomy, while the use in academic circles demonstrates both acceptance of, and a perceived usefulness for, the term. (The Princeton professor has actually gone so far as to incorporate "HSK" and the associated cartoon strip into his lectures on astronomy.) --Ckatzchatspy 10:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we say anything more about this topic than "It's used as a term synonymous for the Big Bang, here's its origin, and it was used here, here, and here"? That is a dictionary definition. We can't have an article unless we go into greater depth, and there just aren't enough reliable sources to do that. I could see a merge with the Calvin and Hobbes article. See The Simpsons#Influences on language - we don't have individual articles on each one of those terms for a good reason. - Chardish (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I think we have established both notability and context. The mainstream media references demonstrate use of the term in discussions about astronomy, while the use in academic circles demonstrates both acceptance of, and a perceived usefulness for, the term. (The Princeton professor has actually gone so far as to incorporate "HSK" and the associated cartoon strip into his lectures on astronomy.) --Ckatzchatspy 10:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of times a neologism has been used, or a list of examples of its use, may establish notability, but it doesn't establish context. We are to avoid articles on neologisms unless we can do more than merely provide a definition. See the relevant policy pages (that and WP:DICDEF) for more info. - Chardish (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge (Selective merge) of a couple of sentences and a cite to the cartoon's splash of coverage to Big Bang. An article is not needed for every funny synonym someone coins in a cartoon for every scientific term. Passing mention in the newspapers cited is not substantial coverage. An individual professor's course notes are not a reliable source, since he can say just about anything in them with no editorial review. Edison (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Big Bang as per Edison. The term also gets a mention in Simon Singh's book the Big Bang on pages 483 - 484. He says there it was used by cosmologists, abbreviating it to the HSK. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but not to Big Bang, as the term is of marginal relevance to the actual Big Bang. (Come on people! We're talking about the origin of the entire universe!) Merge to Calvin and Hobbes. <eleland/talkedits> 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to Both afore mentioned locations, because Wikipedia is not paper and it can afford space on both Articles Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:29, 1 March 2008 (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.