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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-27 11:33Z

Provert[edit]

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

Delete This just smells phony (I can find no reliable external source that supports the claim that this word even exists). I'd say take it to Urban Dictionary, but it's already there (and belongs there). bd2412 T 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - .edu sites seem to hold few if any references to the term. --Remi 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's one man's neologism, as far as I can determine. Non-notable. =Axlq 06:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like an obvious joke to me. Probably someone has a friend with the surname. Jeff Knaggs 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified neologism, original research, and likely joke.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Against Delete Sorry that you feel this article is not a serious subject for Wikipedia. Provert is not my personal neologism (if it is, then I gladly claim full credit as the originator), but is an attempt to define a complex sociological word that I believe requires a proper definition. If I have the terminology right, Provert is currently between the Protologism and Diffused stage in society, and is being used in a few conversations on the web. Granted, the word is not as common in English as Pervert, but the concept has been noted in several disciplines, which is one of the reasons I have tried to verbosely explain it in several examples to show these connections (which needs more work). I first came across the word Provert about ten years ago and noticed there was not a formal definition in English, even though Provert derives from Latin. I have talked to individuals who know Latin and have replaced my part of the article with theirs, but I need more people (preferably with a back ground in Logic and Sociology) to contribute the article and check for accuracy. Septagram 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that what we need for the article, rather than experts on linguistics, is some external reliable sources that can satisfy WP:NOTE. As it currently stands, I would vote Delete pending further citations. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a notable social phenomonon, then it will aready have been given a name by social scientists. I know, I used to be one (we're nuts about naming things). bd2412 T 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good, You could be useful, if this phenomenon already has an existing name/word besides Provert, could you let us know? By the way, Google has over 17,000 hits for Provert with a sizable amount of those entries being related to perverts. What do you believe of their use and definition of Provert if it is a non-word? Septagram 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google advanced search to knock out foreign languages, and you get about 277 unique hits. Of those, the vast majority are surnames and misspellings. bd2412 T 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I did a Google English only search and got "9,920 English pages for provert". What else did you put in your search? I also did "provert pervert -latin" and got 135 English hits and 1,940 for "provert pervert -latin" not selecting English. Septagram 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between unique hits and the number of pages that Google turns up. More to the point, can you point me to a single reliable source (i.e. not a wiki or urban dictionary or a blog or forum) where this word is used to mean anything remotely related to the subject matter claimed in the article? bd2412 T 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on finding it. I think it is located somewhere between Neologistics and protologism in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (M-W). If you cannot find those words in M-W, try Wikipedia (but not Wikipedia in M-W). Earlier you said notable social phenomenons will already have been given a name by Social Scientists (SS). Since you are a former SS member, could you tell us what SS doctrine is being lock stepped by the concept of Provert? Septagram 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now, there's no reason to be referring to your fellow editors as SS members. Really what it boils down to is that you just can't sneak a made up word into Wikipedia as an article. That doesn't mean it's not a useful concept, and maybe you can find a legitimate means to introduce this concept into sociology or psychology, and then bring it back here with a pedigree that will allow its inclusion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to put put words into my mouth just because I used an abbreviation. I meant Social Scientist. I do not believe I am sneaking anything in, I'm rather blatant. Provert is being used by others in society, albeit small, nevertheless, my definition not only covers their use of the word but expands and explains. Just because M-W (this abbreviation is for the dictionary and nothing else) has not published it, does not mean the word does not exist. As seen in many other wikipedia articles, many items are not in M-W or other dictionaries. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what SS (as in Social Scientist)concept is similar to Provert? This would really limit the need for a long Provert article since it could be linked to that existing article. Septagram 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I think we'll leave that to the community to decide. And this has nothing to do with M-W; this has to do with the utter lack of any reliable source with an identifiable author having used the term with the meaning asserted in the article in the entire recorded history of humankind. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete looks to be a neologism/protologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would say that this is more of a protologism than anything else. A translation does not, in my opinion, satisfy notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'we seen these kind of people in action and for one am very glad to know what to call them and how to define them to other people. 84.248.66.232
• Delete this is all original research, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 13:13, 26 April 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.