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.
non-notable, no evidence of widespread usage, no sources. Beach drifter (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Author has appeared in legitimate news sources, this book has been cited by, among others, the NYT. Article has existed since 2004 and has had at least 10 unique users edit the page.Vulture19 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about the book I'd agree, but it's about a neologism with very little use. Maybe the article should be about the book? Or added in a section on the author's article? Beach drifter (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International cultural phenomenon with substantial reliable source coverage; satisfies the general notability guideline. I've added half a dozen sources to the article, and I haven't even gotten to the CNN, Washington Post and New York Times coverage that apparently exists. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "international phenomenon" is a bit of an overstatement. I'm glad to see your sources though, as I googled and didn't really see very much. I think as a book it meets notability but as a word it fails. Beach drifter (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that as a neologism, it's not notable, but I think the cultural phenomenon that has grown up in response to the idea is notable; the book is only a part of the phenomenon, so I don't know that redirecting to an article on the book makes sense. The coverage of the book would mostly be coverage of responses to the book, i.e. the "quirkyalone" movement. I had thought about suggesting a redirect to an article on "International Quirkyalone Day", which is the best-covered aspect of the phenomenon, but that too is only part of the movement. Alternative suggestions would be welcome, as I'm facing some mental block while trying to re-write the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After going through all of the sources I'm somewhat confused as to what should be done with this article. The sources make it apparent that this "phenomenon" has had significant coverage, but it seems all the source articles are really just a response to Sasha Cagen's writings and her quirkyalone.net website. Would quirkyalone.net be a more appropriate article? I find it kind of bothersome that the only real source for this phenomenon, the only place that this word seems to be used heavily, is on the website created by the creator of the word. That said the popularity of this website might make it worth an article, or maybe the article needs to be rewritten based around the book and the site and not around the neologism. I still feel that as a neologism it is being promoted by Sasha Cagen and by a few news articles, making it seem as if this is something more popular that it is. Beach drifter (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced neologism. Meets GNG and seems to meet the relevant SNG. Perhaps one could argue "one event" or some such (mainly one book/author) but it's covered. Merging to the book would probably be a good editorial decision at this point. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (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.