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 no consensus. Reviewing this discussion in detail, there were some very poor rationales presented on both sides, and some very good ones (as well as good responses). I could not find a clear consensus either way after giving certain arguments lower weights, and even if I took it all on face-value, I suspect there wouldn't be a consensus to delete either. If you think I'm going blind and missing key points, please file at WP:DRV. Daniel 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copasetic[edit]

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

This article is a dictionary entry with a pop culture section thrown it to make it seem like more than it is (pop culture sections are against policy anyway). I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

There are apparently a couple of users who seem adamant about keeping this although nobody wants to articulate a reason.

--Mcorazao 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we need to stay on topic here. The question is not whether we can add some interesting discussion in the article. I could add a whole section on the Roman Empire saying that the empire was "copasetic" but that is beside the point. The question here is whether there is an actual subject here. A good test to use is, if I were to substitute the title word with a synonym (say, "acceptable" in this case) would it still make sense and would the subject remain the same. For this article the answer is obviously "no". The thing being discussed here is the word. There is no "concept" of acceptability being discussed (and if the intent is to create an article on that concept then the article is misnamed and the content does not really support it). I agree that there is some interesting annecdotes surrounding the term "copasetic" but Wikipedia is not a collection of interesting annecdotes. Every article should clearly discuss a thing that is independent of what terms might be used to describe it. The terms used to describe things should be listed in Wiktionary (along with their definitions, etymology, and any other relevant information about the words themselves). --Mcorazao 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It already has an entry on Wiktionary, and, as often pointed out Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why I think Wiktionary exists... Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The discussion is more than in a dictionary, the uses are significant, and the discussion can -- and should --be expanded. DGG (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very much a word with cultural associations (at least two major ones, Bojangles and Apollo). Significantly more than a dictionary definition. At worst, transwiki this referenced material to Wiktionary, which has an earlier unreferenced version of our article on its discussion page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does look like just a dicdef (etymology and all), but apparently it's a rather unusual word, being of unknown origin, so I think it can be expanded. And since when are "pop culture" sections against policy?--UsaSatsui 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Trivia sections --Mcorazao 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Handling trivia --Mcorazao 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those pages are policy, and this page: WP:IPC is more appropriate anyways. It says they're discouraged, but not forbidden. --UsaSatsui 07:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IPC says they are discouraged and gives good reasons. The "pop culture" list in this article simply lists people who have said this word. Good grief. Are we going to list out the people (notable or not) who say every word in every context (notable or not) in every ridiculously obscure song/movie? That's called a concordance, not an encyclopedia. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it's still not "against policy" to have them. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whether it's "against policy" or "discouraged", IMO, is irrelevant. The essence of the guideline is that it doesn't belong here. "Pop culture" means "trivia", and these "pop culture" events simply list some people who have uttered the word or maybe used it in an obscure song. Hardly encyclopedic. Keeper76 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The word it odd enough that I think it rises to the level of encyclopedic. The pop culture citations are painful - has anyone read a friggin' book in the last 20 years? Wikipedia is long past saving as far as that goes. MarkBul 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a really fancy dictionary. Recury 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons given above as the last three "keeps". It is just a word, to use your "word". Being an "unusual" word doesn't warrant an encyclopedic article, but does warrant what should be a much more interesting wiktionary article. Make the wiktionary article better instead. (right now, it is lacking). And preemptively, I'll add WP:ININ and similarly WP:OTHERSTUFF in case the flood of other "word" articles get cited here as justification... Keeper76 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "more interesting" wictionary article? I don't think so. Wictionary is not an encyclopedia (See? It goes both ways). --UsaSatsui 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't Wiktionary be interesting too? Recury 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not. Have you ever seen an interesting dictionary? (Seriously, yes, it can, but that doesn't mean information outside what you'd find in a dictionary belongs in Wictionary. The word can have an entry in both Wikipedia and Wictionary.) --UsaSatsui 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously! It is a word! Thats it. Just a word. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Rjd0060 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several, perfectly valid articles that are "just a word". Like this one. It's content that counts. An article that can't be more than a dictionary definition should be deleted, this one can be more. --UsaSatsui 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to get short UsaSatsui. Your example is rather harsh, and, although I can easily argue that your example is not even in the same league as Copasetic, it is still an ineffective argument by wiki-standards according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Who says ^#%$@*&!^#%@ can't be also nominated or transwikid? You even said it (copasetic) appears to be a "dicdef." What exactly could you or anybody add to make this better that wouldn't be more appropriate in wiktionary? Are you asserting that a wiktionary article can't be interesting, and if it were, than it should be here instead? Really? I still say delete - Keeper76 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, it was the first word that came to mind, and a bit vulgar, but a good choice. I wasn't making a WP:WAX argument, which would be "The F-word has an article, so this should too!". I was just showing that an article -can- be written about a word, and being about a word doesn't automatically exclude it. And for the record, I said it appears to be a dicdef. Upon a closer look, it's more.

• What exactly makes this more "upon closer look?" Its a word, etymology, obscure "uses" in pop culture, and some references (some good, some bad) Dictionary all the way. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The phrase "It is an unusual English language word in that it is one of the few words of seemingly unknown origin that is not considered slang in contemporary usage" is what does it for me. For me, that asserts the notability of the word outside of it's meaning, and other sources in the article back it up. It can be expanded on, sure, but it's not just a dicdef. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article states that it is "of seemingly unknown origin" and then lists several possibilities for origin. That isn't a "missing" etymology, just "conflicting" or perhaps "controversial" etymologies. Either way, missing or conflicting, it is still more appropriate for wiktionary if that is the ONLY notable thing about a word. Beyond it's etymological anomaly, the word in and of itself is obscure, rarely used, and the references including Mr. Jangles, are a stretch. Keeper76 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • The word is interesting in part because of the literary interest of authors such as David Mamet and John O'Hara. Both of them have written about the word, not just used it. Words that have people writing about them (e.g. "fuck") are more notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Folks, I can't understand why we keep getting so far off topic on such a simple issue. The fact that somebody wrote an interesting magazine article about the history of the word has nothing to do with whether the word itself constitutes an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. --Mcorazao 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it has everything to do with it. The very fact that it has been written about helps to establish it's notability. --UsaSatsui 07:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or transwiki this referenced material to Wiktionary. Doesn't matter to me where it is put, but DON'T DELETE as has happened with referenced etymologies etc. of other words that were called "just a dicdef". I vote keep because it gives a portion of history of the english language and of cultural usage. I did a lot of the research for this page so please respect that and transfer completely to wiktionary if deemed inappropriate for wikipedia. Might I add that this should be standard policiy for any AfD deemed just a dicdef. Repliedthemockturtle 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Repliedthemockturtle, I do respect your work and your editing. It isn't about respect though, it's about appropriateness. Yes you did research. But it belongs in Wiktionary at best, and my vote is for delete AND move. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung and DGG. A mysterious word used by cool folk like high school band directors in the early 1960's, of unknown origin, etymology and meaning. Requires further research to bring to featured article status. 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Edison
• Keep While this is not a dictionary wikipedia can have an article about anything and not only any thing, including words, if there is a enough to write about as in this case. Or, as someone else put it: We don't really want articles about words, but if someone writes a good one, we'll take it. --Tikiwont 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator is dead on here. Plus, its the copasetic thing to do. Burntsauce 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, obviously Wikipedia is consensus-based and I see no indication of a consensus. Any of the "Delete" proponents want to say anything further or is the nomination dead? --Mcorazao 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's dead yet. This was only AfD'd yesterday, and normal AfD policy is to allow about five days of discussion for a consensus to develop. Rob T Firefly 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, don't be so quick to make a judgment. This is a good discussion. --UsaSatsui 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Transwiki nothing but dicdef materials... move it to wiktionary and delete it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's one of my favorite words, but it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article when the dictionary definition does the job nicely. Rob T Firefly 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Copasetic is not the only word in Wikipedia. I just checked and nigger is still in and there seems to be no drive to delete it (and there shouldn't be). Obviously you would not have words like 'table,' 'glass,' or 'chair' in an encyclopedia. However, when a word has specific cultural associations, then that merits an entry. Copasetic is copasetic and should STAY. gar in Oakland 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll assert again, that the two examples given as "reasons to keep copasetic" are really in a completely different LEAGUE of notability based on their varied use, translatability (I know that's not a word), and social context and history. "Copasetic" is just not comparable to fuck and the n-word. Just NOT. Picking out highly controversial words that have shaped entire country's histories (Ok, "fuck" hasn't shaped anything) is not a good argument and is completely crap. Copasetic is an obscure, albeit very cool, word. But it's just a word. It belongs in Wiktionary. IMO. Keeper | 76 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get back on my soapbox again even though I know mine is apparently not a majority viewpoint. Wikipedia is gradually becoming less an encyclopedia and more an "anthology" of interesting writings. I think the philosophy that if you can pick a title and come up with some interesting writings that are related to it then you have an encyclopedia article is not a good one. I think for Wikipedia to be a coherent reference (which an encyclopedia should be) you need to draw the line fairly clearly on what an article is supposed to be (i.e. "interesting" or "notable" is way to vague). I'll reiterate my philosophy that an encyclopedia article should be about a coherent, notable physical entity, event, or concept. Articles about words, essays on "interesting things", and other such articles, while valuable, do not belong in an encyclopedia. An article on the N-word is certainly interesting and some of its content might be appropriate to include in articles on racism, profanity, African American history, or other topics but an article on the word itself, however interesting, is not encyclopedic. --Mcorazao 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing but a dictionary definition. It's not even close. It doesn't even pretend to be anything else. Other times we allow an article about a neologism, it's not for the word itself but the phenomenon surrounding the term. Here there is no such discussion. Wikidemo 18:06, 29 September 2007 (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.