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. John254 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internets[edit]

Internets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Preivous AfD resulted in no consensus.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, a quick look at the sources reveals that they are almost entirely primary sources. Only one, as far as I can tell, is a secondary source. This article is built upon a house of original research and synthesis, not the reliable sources we require, and is out of scope at any rate. The most this neologism merits is a brief mention in the Internet article. Powers ^T 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is precisely the kind of information one could hope to find in Wikipedia but not in traditional information sources. The concept exists and is interesting to some people, so the article makes Wikipedia a better place for information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a dictionary, not encyclopedia-like, not notable enough even for a dictionary definition. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NPR felt it was important enough to do a story on; lots of gnews hits, quite a number of which are about this usage. It had enough legs that Jon Stewart is still using this phrase to mock Bush, years later.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those Google News hits, those that aren't false positives at least, are largely about Bush's use of the word, not about the word itself -- not about its development, or about its continuing cultural impact. And the mere fact that a word has currency in the media is not indicative of notability. Powers ^T 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like we're looking at the same glass and can't decide if it's half full or empty. I'm not sure how a neologism can have notability unless it's through discussion of its use, a lasting impact, and either currency in the media or scholarly works. Unfortunately, WP:NEO doesn't give us clear guidance.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems clear enough to me: "... articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." As I noted, only one of the multitude of references in this article is actually useful for WP:V purposes and "track the emergence and use of the term" appears to me to be an apt description of the entire content of this article. Powers ^T 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bushism or Internet; I do not see how this is any more significant than "misunderestimate" or "war is a dangerous place". --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would welcome articles on "misunderestimate" and "war is a dangerous place" if they were as content-rich and well-sourced as "internets". Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of use and notability, I think this is more akin to Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy than those examples. --DaveJB (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not based on the current article and sources. Powers ^T 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs more sources, but this is an important term in that it has been taken up as a popular jocular phrase and specifically relates to criticism of the administration's competence and/or policies. (I would personally prefer the actual article be at The Internets, but that's not critical.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on The Internets (currently links to the article under debate), kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well referenced and has notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are two claims above that the article is well referenced. Only one of the references in the article is a secondary source. The rest are examples of use, not sources that are about the word. How is that good sourcing? Powers ^T 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and well-known term. Bankbryan (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not at issue. Could you please address the actual argument I made for deletion? Powers ^T 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The phrase has legs. I needed the answer for where it was first used. Wikipedia answered my question. People who wish to remove it are probably politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.62.147 (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such information is the domain of a dictionary. Under policy, dictionary information belongs in Wiktionary. Powers ^T 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - you're AfDing this on the basis of WP:NAD when about two-thirds of the text in the article is devoted to the effects and reaction to the term? To me this is almost a textbook example of what Wikipedia articles on neologisms should be like, and while your apparent campaign for better compliance with WP:NAD is a worthy goal, you seem to be picking some pretty odd articles to wave it at. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if you reverse the actual cause and effect. I only AfD articles I think are fairly clear-cut, so since these are failing so spectacularly, the policy must not be clear (due to confusion on my part, apparently). Powers ^T 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If this was just some short-lived internet fad I might agree, but it's an instance where a world leader (however unintentionally) introduced a new phrase that quickly became part of pop culture and remains so to this day. Frankly, I don't think a Wiktionary article would do it justice. Maybe needs a few more secondary sources, but otherwise I don't see any reason why it can't be kept. --DaveJB (talk) 14:50, 8 July 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.