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 delete, at the risk (?) of being overturned on appeal. Most keeps are a take on ILIKEIT or the "Pokemon argument" (citing other articles like teh), whereas the delete reasons (particularly those of Colonel Warden) seem to be more grounded in policy. The most well-reasoned arguments appear to be in favor of deletion and, since this is not a vote, the article is deleted. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned at DRV here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is entirely about an unusual mispronunciation of a common word, and pronunciation is explicitly the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. This just isn't an encyclopedic topic. According to the talk page, the article has already been transwikied, so all we have to do is delete it. Powers T 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: On second thought, the "Lexical notes" section is actually quite good. The whole article is well-written, really, and even the lexical notes section, which cites dictionaties, does not provide any "definitions" that, even on their own, would conflict with WP:NOT. Rather, it provides...well, lexical notes. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see how it qualifies as any of these things to point out that the guy mispronounces a word. There's plenty of other sourced material (e.g., criticism by other politicians) that is considerably more harsh, yet perfectly acceptable under WP:BLP. Besides, the article also points out that two other presidents (including Bill Clinton) have made the same mispronunciation. Art thou trying to make a WP:POINT? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be sure, the pronunciation was common enough before the FIRST President Bush. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George W. Bush is mentioned exactly once on this page, which is in a sentence that says that Bush, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton all said "nucular". How on earth can you justify calling this an anti-Bush attack page? --Hnsampat (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article started as being all about George and this history is still obvious despite the layers of dictionary material which have been added since. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The information is sourced and reliable. Thus it is not a WP:BLP, regardless of how negatively it may reflect on anyone. And if WP:NPOV is still an issue, then remember: 1) Pointing out that someone mispronounces a word is hardly libelous. (Although if anyone accuses me of calling such an observation libelous, then I'm takin' ya to court. Kidding, kidding.) 2) W., I believe, has even admitted to and parodied his own inability to speak. And WP:COAT is an absurdly huge stretch. Plenty of people have mispronounced the word before. And even if Dubya were the first (in which case the article would say so directly, rendering WP:COAT completely irrelevant), so what? When you're president, people notice the stuff you say and do. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually "someone famous studied it" is pretty much the definition of notability. There are hundreds of articles in the math section that are "little more than mathematics" but they have been studied in secondary sources. We report on that. As for the nature of the discussion, we may transwiki the content to wiktionary (without the references to presidents and simpsons) and retained.Protonk (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I realize that's the definition of notability. I said "someone famous studied it" is not indicative of encyclopedic value. Why do people keep bringing up notability? We don't and shouldn't have articles on everything that's notable, nor has anyone ever disputed that this pronunciation is notable. The question at hand is whether it's within the scope of this project. Powers T 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep bringing up notability because it is a bedrock guideline dictating the inclusion of articles. Unless something violates WP:NOT, WP:NPOV or WP:V, it can stay. That stops us from having ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debates over different types of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing old school as a good example of an encyclopedic topic is misrepresentation. It is a poor article which might have trouble surviving AFD itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exactly. Truthiness is an excellent comparison. One could even make the case that words such as these are more suitable for an encyclopedia than for a dictionary, because they're not "words" in any traditional sense, but they are cultural entities that have received reliably documented attention from both academic and lay observers. In other words, they're notable. Keep. End of story. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truthiness is indeed a good example because that topic goes beyond the mere word into a deeper discussion of the political, humorous and philosophical aspects of the usage which are distinctive and of some substance. This is not the case with nucular which merely documents a pronunciation which has no such deeper aspects. This is the essential point here - whether we have a proper topic or mere discussion of word usage. The latter belongs in Wiktionary which already has a succinct entry for this which does a better job of explaining the matter by linking to our article Epenthesis which explains the linguistic shift in a general way, giving nucular as an example. The nucular article is therefore both redundant and inappropriate. The policy page WP:DICT goes to some length to explain all this and this article clearly fails this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given my experiences trying to have articles that clearly violate WP:DICT deleted, I'm beginning to think that policy may not be enforceable anymore, given public sentiment against it. Powers T 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my experience too (see Dude - another article which is all about a word and its pronunciation). I suggested deprecating the policy but others insist that we should keep it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Epenthesis is merely descriptive; it doesn't explain the reason people say "nucular" or anything else. And plenty of epenthesis (e.g., "thunor --> thunder," perhaps) has not aroused much, if any, academic debate. "Nucular" has. Without the "Motivation" section of Nucular, I would question the article's significance. But with that section, any such doubt is obviated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bedrock guideline or not, no one has disputed the notability of the topic. The deletion is entirely predicated on WP:NOT, which you specifically mention as possible grounds for deletion. It's very frustrating to have people arguing with me over something I've already conceded. Powers T 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NOT doesn't seem to apply here anyway. How many "dictionary definitions" cite linguists, a psychologist, U.S. presidents, and even Homer Simpson? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know the exact answer, but plenty of dictionaries contain the results of linguistic research as well as popular usage examples. Certainly the OED does. Powers T 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Part of the trouble is that editors seem to think that dictionary entries are short. This is not at at all the case with a comprehensive dictionary like the OED. The OED has two entries for this word. The first, older meaning is the botanical one. It also has a detailed entry which corresponds to this article. This fully demonstrates that this article is just like a dictionary entry and so doesn't belong here. I can't do the formatting properly - the timeline or phonetics - but here's the meat. Note the reference to usage guides - they are another thing that Wikipedia is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular, adj.2

Brit. /njukjl/, U.S. /n(j)ukjlr/ [Alteration of NUCLEAR adj., representing a colloquial pronunciation (widely criticized by usage guides: see note s.v. NUCLEAR adj.). There is no evidence of influence from the earlier word NUCULAR adj.1]

= NUCLEAR adj. (in various senses).

1943 Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 70 460 They..begin the reversion process which results in a 4n restitution nucleus... A nucular membrane begins to form around the whole group or around smaller groups or isolated chromosomes. 1958 Science 25 July 195/1 (heading) Proceedings of the Rehovoth Conference on Nucular Structure. 1983 Freezniks Unite! in net.politics (Usenet newsgroup) 8 Apr., Her speech, which I did not hear, centered mainly around nuclear (nucular, to her) disarmament. 1985 Financial Times (Nexis) 2 Dec. I. 18 The CEGB spent £4m staging a full-scale crash of a nucular fuel transport flask at 100 mph. 2003 OT: Nucular! in rec.crafts.textiles.needlework (Usenet newsgroup) 11 July, It's not just George Bushsome very knowledgeable American professor/Scientist on TV just now, talking about the cold war, just spoke about the ‘Nucular threat!’

*Delete. Certainly it's a notable pronunciation and the article is interesting, but that's not the issue. Word origins, lexical notes, and usage is exactly what you would expect a good dictionary entry to contain, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's been transwikied to Wiktionary, where it belongs, so nothing would even be lost. ~ mazca t | c 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Keep The current state of the Wiktionary article [2] demonstrates that it hasn't really been "transwikied" at all, by the way. I suggest that the nominator might want to revise that in the nomination. Additionally, on further review this article does appear to contain more than Wiktionary entries generally do, and that extra information is, for the most part, sourced and encyclopedic, making the article "more than a dictionary definition". I can see the nominator's point about enforcing WP:DICDEF, but I don't think this is the right article to make that point on. ~ mazca t | c 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still in the holding area and hasn't been integrated into the main dictionary: wikt:Transwiki:Nucular. Also, the issue is not whether the article contains more than wiktionary, but whether that additional content is encyclopedic. WP:DICT is very clear that we have articles on eight-armed mollusks, not on the word octopus. Powers T 13:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the transwiki, I wasn't aware that was how it was being handled. But it really looks to me like this is more than a dictionary definition, in that a fair proportion of the article seems to be devoted to its usage and history, rather than simply it's meaning and etymology. ~ mazca t | c 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usage and history are dictionary material too. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usage as in grammar and meaning, yes. Usage in culture and media? I'd say that's more encyclopedia than dictionary. History as in etymology and origins? Yes, dictionary. History, again, as in usage in the media and culture over time? I would again say that's perfectly valid encyclopedia material. ~ mazca t | c 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We know that WP:NAD is official policy. We also know that WP:NOT is official policy. That is why User:Father Goose quoted from the latter: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." And here is the statement that immediately precedes that in WP:NOT: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." So, let's say that Nucular did contain nothing more than a dictionary definition. Then, our first goal would be to see if we can expand it by using reliable, independent sources that provide more information than a dictionary would provide. Such sources might demonstrate the use of the word by significant public figures. Well, okay, the mere fact that so-and-so used a word might qualify as a "lexical note" appropriate for a dictionary; it might even be of etymological interest, in the event that so-and-so actually coined the word. So then we try to see if the lexical notes can be complemented by additional information--like, say, an academic debate (especially an interdisciplinary one!) about the word. And that is exactly what we have in the "Motivation" section of this article. Also note this sentence from the article: "Merriam-Webster receive enough questions about their inclusion of this pronunciation in the dictionary that it is one of two pronunciations which receive particular mention in their FAQ (along with "February")." This is not part of any dictionary definition; it is a fact about a dictionary, and if WP:NAD or WP:NOT precluded such facts, then the article "Dictionary" could not exist. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the article is borderline dictionary material, borderline encyclopedic. The scale is tipped in favour of inclusion by 1) WP:N, which everyone admits that the word "nucular" meets; and 2) the preference that WP:ATD be applied to articles with any sort of promise. And as for promise, take note of the fact that Geoffrey Nunberg has written a book about the term, "nucular"! (Come to think of it, I could have made my entire case here just by pointing that out. I'm willing to bet that no one has written anything of comparable worth about "Cleveland steamer.") Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful. He wrote one chapter about the term. That's a significant difference when we're using it to illustrate the amount of text that could be written on a topic. Powers T 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should certainly have articles upon linguistic features such as metathesis and epenthesis and these are the proper places to include such material, which they already do. But why do we need articles on each specific example such as cumf-ter-bull (comfortable)? This arguably notable too (sources) but not a suitable free-standing topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please take my comments as a whole. No one is claiming that any example of metathesis deserves an article simply because someone has mentioned it in a book. My point is that "nucular" has dominated lexical discussions to a point that, say, "comf-ter-BULL" has not. Ironically, this source that you provided (via Google) just confirms what I've been saying all along: "Noo-kyuh-lur was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents," it says. (!!!!) Thanks! We should add that to the article. This sort of expansion is the sort of thing that WP:NOT and WP:ATD have in mind. I had been planning to say that these policies are inclusionistic enough (note that I, personally, am generally inclined toward deletionism), and that the topic seems notable enough, that deletion would simply be premature. Given this citation, though, deletion would seem absurd. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's interesting, because I'm generally inclined toward inclusionism. =) Powers T 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • notability is not the issue. All words which appear in dictionaries are notable. The policy which this article is failing is WP:DICTIONARY. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As has been stated several times before in this discussion, if an article appears to be a dictionary definition (which this one might not be, anyway), then Wikipedia policy encourages deletion only if it can't be expanded beyond that. It is clear, from sources like this one and this one, that A) there are plenty of directions in which the article can be expanded, and B) even if "all words which appear in dictionaries are notable," this "word" is considerably more notable than other words because--I quote yet again--"[Nucular] was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents" in a newspaper-conducted poll. This should be a talk page discussion, not an AfD debate. And we should be talking about which of several potential ways would be best to improve the article--not about whether or not all of these ways should be dismissed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I continue to think a discussion on the merits of this article is warranted. In my opinion, an interpretation as inclusive as yours would be the cause of significant overlap with Wiktionary's mission and goals, which will be damaging to both projects. Powers T 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my interpretation is no more inclusive than WP:ATD. I'd say I've provided ample evidence that ATD applies to Nucular, and have yet to see anyone try to refute that claim explicitly. And of course there will be overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. A dictionary will contain select, lexical elements about select concepts, some of which might also be encyclopedic; and it may add some technical (e.g., phonetic, syntactic, etymological) information that would be overkill in an encyclopedia. In other words, some overlap, some non-overlap. The entire Nucular article, even in its current form, would be far too long for Wiktionary. (Take a look at how concise the entry is for such a common word as "dog"!) Again, my point is simple: enough thorough, thoughtful, and independent sources exist for this to be expanded per WP:ATD, or at least to be removed from WP:AFD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No Not necessarily. Nice slippery slope. You seem to be implying that Nucular is not notable. There is already a large consensus here that it is notable. The debate concerns whether it is notable in both a dictionary sense and an encyclopedic sense. My view is that, in light of sources provided as well as WP:ATD, it is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Blimey! Yet another attempted case for deletion, which ultimately leads me to more evidence in favour of retention. Teh and Owned are excellent examples of what Wiktionary cannot tell us about some unusual words. Interestingly, both of those articles have survived AfD's! Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article is a little underdone (despite originating in 2003), but is potentially a much better article than it is currently. For example, I think this single word, more than any other, is a case study not just on evolution of the language as others have pointed out, but more poignant issues: the shortcomings of the American educational system and an indicator of the intellectual calibre of American presidents. Sometimes a word is not just a word. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. While I like to poke fun of bush as much as 70% of the next guys, you can't really blame "american" education for presidents educated in the 1960's and matriculated from private colleges (hell, reagan was even older). Also, I've heard captains of nuclear submarines say "nucular". Not saying that makes it right but lets be real about the message we take away from it. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 10 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.
Category