Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protologism (3rd nomination)

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. First, let me deal with the recommendations that are completely out of the question. (a) Move to Wiktionary. Wiktionary does not accept encyclopaedic content and already has an extensive entry including usage quotations and etymology. Of course, that does beg the question: is there any encyclopaedic content left after discounting everything DICDEF (ie, could be in Wiktionary)? In my opinion, this is right on the borderline with very little left, but it is not my opinion that counts here, I need to analyze the recommendations made by participants. (b) Redirect. This recommendation makes no sense. The target article's only mention of protologism is a see also back to here. A redirect would only be useful if there was first a merge of at least some material.

Six participants recommended 'keep' or 'merge' and four recommended 'delete'. However, one of the delete opinions (from 86.17) is invalid as far as policy based arguments goes (some keep opinions were also not policy based, but only in part). The weight of opinion is therefore for keep, but is not far from no consensus.

Finally, on merge, this close is not to be taken as precluding that action. That can be discussed outside of AfD, which is perhaps what should have happened in the first instance. SpinningSpark 11:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Page fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. The only source to treat the term non-trivially is that of the author who coined the term. The others simply mention the term and then give some definition. A google search returns only dictionary entries, and a google scholar search returns only 24 entries, most of which are in Russian but the ones in English don't bode well for the topic either. None of them treat the subject non-trivially, and the most cited publication only mentions protologisms to call them "inadequate" explanation for the discussion of the book.

Independently of the GNG, it also is on the wrong side of WP:NOTDICT. The article consists only of a definition and etymology. There seem to be no sources that give anything beyond the information already in the article: a definition and a nod to Epstein. Regardless of whether protologism is notable, it still is too much of a dictionary entry to have its own article.

I previously redirected the article, but it was reverted, citing an AFD discussion. Because of the previous AFDs, I think this would be the better venue for coming to a consensus rather than a merge or redirect request languishing on an unwatched talk page. Others mentioned that a merge to neologism would also be acceptable. Personally, I would be fine with deletion or redirection, I don't think there's any real content worth merging as I think its inclusion in the neologism article would be undue weight. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a concept that nobody other than the creator has taken up. Nobody else who matters distinguishes this from a neologism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, except actual usage in reliable sources disprove that assertion. This recent and specialist term isn't common yet, but that's not a deletion rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think anything has really changed since the last AfD which was kept about 3 months and a half ago. I think a merge (or redirect) is inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly, a protologism and neologism are distinct because neologisms are regularly used by lexicographers while protologisms on the other hands are never used; hence they are clearly at very separate stages of language formation. Secondly, we have already had an editor threaten to delete the content in case it ends up in a merge. Therefore a vote for a merge would in essence and practicality be a vote for deletion. 88.104.36.119 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, firstly, the rationale has changed. The previous AFD argued for deletion because the article was "really small" and on whether it was different from a neologism. I'm saying it doesn't pass the GNG nor does it comply with WP:NOTDICT which wasn't brought up in the previous discussion. The GNG was brought up once to say that there were hits in a Google Books search, but as I said here, none of them are non-trivial mentions. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently a WP:NEOLOGISM. EEng 03:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologisms are not banned as article topics, but are simply "commonly deleted" if they have little or no usage in reliable sources. A word or phrase can be an encyclopedic subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wiktionary, or delete if there's nothing of value to keep. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Neologism as a section: It's well-referenced and considerably more than a WP:DICDEF, giving history and background. WP itself frequently has articles or article sections on protologisms (e.g. Campaign for "santorum" neologism which began as Santorum (slang), then was merged into the Dan Savage article, before being developed much further into the present article) It would be helpful to have an article on the protologism concept to link to, instead of having the explain it in situ (with sources) every single time it comes up. Additional sources, just from one search: [1].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  PS: Merge has also been supported by some commenters at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Request for comment: mention protologisms?.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even without an article on the topic, it's possible to link to wiktionary:protologism (using "|" to suppress the prefix) or Wikipedia:Glossary#Protologism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm one of the aforementioned editors supporting a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Neologism – I think Protologism just barely meets the requirement of having sources about the word (including its "social or historical significance" per Wikipedia is not a dictionary) rather than merely using the word. A 2014 article published online by Macmillan discusses the concept of protologisms (not merely the word protologism), using as examples of protologisms the comedian Alex Horne's so-called "linguistic seeds" and Sir James Dyson's efforts to promote the verb dyson (as a verb akin to hoover). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fascinating... language changes, and it may even be that Wikipedia will need to rephrase our policies and guidelines if this term takes off, depending how exactly its common use relates to the older term neologism. But it's already encyclopedic, as the references show and as the more recent AfD decided. A topic isn't non-notable just because it's esoteric, as many articles on rare species show, nor because it's new, as any royal birth or major disaster shows. Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also referred to and actively used in the WP-namespace.--*thing goes (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into neologism. Short enough, appropriate subtopic, and the notability and the encyclopedicity of this as a separate topic are, as the nomination highlights, quite questionable. As to *thing goes's comment, whether anything is used in Wikipedia is of no significance for inclusion.  Sandstein  16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the article consists of multiple re-statements of the very obvious--"all neologisms have to start somewhere".Glendoremus (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2016 (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.