Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skintern

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skintern

Skintern (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)

As I said at DYK, "Without exception (that I can see) the sources introduce the term as a novelty it doesn't expect readers to understand -- it's either in quotes, or introduced by such phrases as 'Someone has even coined a word for the phenomenon: skintern'. That's the sure sign of a neologism. When it attains the status of gofer -- so that it's used in passing without special introduction -- it won't be a neologism anymore." EEng (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the requirements of WP:GNG have been met, and the concerns raised in WP:NOTNEO have been addressed—specifically, the article cites reliable secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than simply citing articles that merely use the term. Thus, there is no original research problem, and the sources that talk about the term itself are sufficient to meet the notability, verifiability, and reliable source requirements, placing the article in the WP:WORDISSUBJECT subsection of the policy, rather than WP:NOTNEO. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- what sources would those be? Of the many sources in the article, could you just list (say) three which don't themselves treat it as a neologism? EEng (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and I don't really have the time (or energy) to dig through the 13 sources to find what you're asking for (additionally, your question is not exactly clear, as I do not know what you mean exactly by "treat it as a neologism"—how does one differentiate between an article discussing a neologism and an article discussing a word that is not a neologism?). Ultimately, you are asking a question that has no bearing on the policy at issue; thus, digging through the sources seems like a bit of a waste of time. The question relevant to the policy(ies) at hand is not, "Do the sources treat it as a neologism?" The question is, "Are there secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than merely use the term?" And the answer to the second question is clearly yes: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by "treat it as a neologism" is what I said in my OP: the sources all "introduce the term as a novelty it doesn't expect readers to understand -- it's either in quotes, or introduced by such phrases as 'Someone has even coined a word for the phenomenon: skintern'. That's the sure sign of a neologism." Here's the entirety of the appearances of skintern in your four sources:

In other words all of these sources themselves treat skintern as a neologism. In addition, none of these are about the term, as NOTNEO requires: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." EEng (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEO. It is irrelevant whether a source treats the word as a word it does not expect readers to understand. And we are citing what reliable secondary sources say about the term; simply because the sources also go on to use the term does not mean that we cannot use other parts of those sources where the authors talk about the term itself. The requirement of the policy is not that we must find articles, the main purpose of which is to talk about the term. The requirement is simply that the sources used must talk about the term itself, rather than using the term and having editors use original research to define the term based on how the source has used it. No original research is occurring here; the article uses the sources' discussions about the term to explain it. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but where do any of these sources talk about the term itself? EEng (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Skintern is a term I first heard from a male colleague who disapproved of the yearly ritual of scantily-clad young women showing up to do summer internships at our company." (2) "In Washington, D.C. ... a name has evolved for the scantily-clad summer staff: 'skinterns.'" (3) "Almost immediately on beginning my internship in a Senator’s office, I learned the DC slang for a female intern showing too much skin: “skintern.”" (4) "“skinterns,” a reference to young women in skimpy attire." None of those examples are mere uses of the word; they are discussions about what the word means. They may not be lengthy discussions, but that is not the issue. It is clear that in all four instances, the source is talking about the term itself. WP:NOTNEO was written to protect against editors finding sources that used the term and then using original research to define the term based on the context that the source used the term. In these four instances, the sources are giving the definition of the term and explaining how the term was created. A discussion about the origins and definition of a word is inherently a discussion about the word, rather than mere use of the word. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence passing mentions aren't in any sense discussions. EEng (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your opinion, but it certainly isn't based in any policy or guideline. The concern here is not that of WP:CORPDEPTH, where notability is at issue. The concern with that part of WP:NOTNEO is verifiability, and something can be verified with a single sentence. You are confusing notability with verifiability, and principles from one cannot necessarily be applied to the other. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. This is an AfD discussion, and the decision turns (as it almost always does) on notability. The key passage from NOTNEO is this: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. That's the problem here. Passing mentions don't lend notability to a new word any more than they do to anything else. EEng (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; that is the key passage from WP:NOTNEO, but you're reading it out of context. If you look at the very next sentence, it's clear the sentence you cited is referring to verifiability: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." The original research policy is concerned with verifiability, not notability. Your interpretation is clearly wrong, because even the sentence that you referred to cites the policy about using secondary sources, which, again, is a verifiability issue, not a notability one. I don't understand why you would refer only to the first sentence and ignore the sentence that follows it, when the following sentence so easily clarifies the context of first sentence. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as article creator. A term in use for a decade cannot by any reasonable stretch of logic be considered a neologism as it isn't new anymore ("Paleologism"). In addition, the article is not so much about the word but the phenomenon it denotes. To nominate it for deletion on the former basis is to demonstrate that one has about as much understanding of what an article is supposed to be about as a utensil does of the food it carries. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been perceived and analysed as a phenomenon by several journalists and described in prestigious publications. It meets WP:GNG. There are lots of Wikipedia articles on terms that many people will not understand, and nowhere in the thousands of pages of policy is that grounds for deletion. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable phenomenon. WP:GNG have been met--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begrudging keep. This article is too long and has far too many quotes, but the fact that it could get that way just reinforces the argument in favor of keeping and cleaning it up. The fact that the term and concept have any currency is terrible, but even sexist, classist, judgmental, moralizing male-gazery can be notable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO does not preclude all articles about words that happen to be labelled as neologisms — it specifically allows for neologisms that can be properly sourced as having currency in usage. The difference is not the age of the word itself, but how reliably sourceable it is or isn't. For example, we have an article about selfie, a term which is no older than this one is, and nobody would seriously suggest that we should delete that as its notability as a concept is properly supported by RS coverage. The same applies here: the term and its context is properly documented by RS. More references would certainly help, but enough are already present. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skintern&oldid=1077953750"