Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism)

Lewinsky (neologism)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion, for all reasons discussed here, and per consensus on that page that the article should undergo a full AfD. To summarize: The article was created, most probably, by a badhat sock to make a point about Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The article's sourcing is weak (see this discussion), in spite of having a lot of big name mentions, it doesn't seem to have more than passing discussion. There is already an article where this information belongs, Lewinsky scandal, or else as part of her biography. Again, read the full discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2 BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do when I get a chance. Fell free if you wish, I had a messup which took all my time. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale from the deletion review, per nominator's request:

I make no recommendation as to deletion, merge & redirect, keeping, or moving this article to a new name. I am simply here summarizing the base concern expressed there. It basically boils down to those who wanted it to stay deleted feel like it's a pretty blatant violation of WP:BLP. Particularly, Dreadstar (the inital deleting admin) pointed to this quote from that policy:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Hopefully this can serve as the basis for a discussion regarding the ultimate fate of this article. Best, L H M 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - there is no rationale for this AFD - it has been opened as a confirmation AFD - please do not comment here - this AFD is valueless and should be closed. There is clear support for this content, the AFD has been opened to strengthen it not to delete it. Speedy close as outside process, no deletion rationale confirmation nomination Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm. It accomplishes nothing to repeatedly blank this AFD, as you have done, and to now rail against it. The consensus at the deletion review was to overturn the speedy and relist. I read nothing there that would support your claim that "there is clear support for this content." L H M 22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't say "no" to having a discussion, and the DRV discussion clearly shows heated contention rather than unified consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I amn not suggesting "unified consensus" - however there clearly is no consensus to delete. Without a deletion rationale any comment keep or delete is void. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said at the DRV: "I would like to remind everyone that this [DRV] is a discussion concerning whether Dreadstar's speedy deletion was carried out properly; it isn't a substitute AfD discussion." The consensus was to overturn Dreadstar's decision since the community didn't believe it was speedily deleted properly. It doesn't present a consensus to keep. I !voted to overturn Dreadstar's decision in order to have a proper AfD. The article shouldn't have been deleted without discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a definition and an etymology. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) A mention in Lewinsky scandal may be appropriate. 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well this is off to a terrible start! The original nomination was not completed and did not include a real rationale. I had no interest in making this nomination myself but I did complete the process so it would be listed properly. Off2riorob repeatedly blanked the content, claiming this was a bad-faith nom from someone who does not actually want the article deleted. Whether or not that is true, blanking this page (and edit warring over it) was inappropriate but apparently will stop now. The nominator does need to include a rationale, and if they don't actually want this deleted then this never should have been nominated in the first place. That said, given the discussion at the DRV I would imagine someone would have nominated this eventually. This note marks the end of my involvement here because, well, it just does. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks bigtimepeace, I have learnt something from you "The nominator does need to include a rationale, " I am surprised but hey, I am surprised here every day, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, I had to leave the computer at an inopportune time, and couldn't finish things (and not used to the process). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Weak Transwiki, and UNBLOCK KIWI BOMB. The article is essentially a dictionary article. I've recently transwikied one (Camel toe to wiktionary:cameltoe) which I thought had some remote potential to become an encyclopedia article as well; this seems just a little less than that one, basically a list of attestations. Wiktionary currently lacks an entry at all, which should be modified. From the deletion review it sounds like the sources need double checking to sort over some details. However, I do not support deleting the article in the event transwiki is chosen, because it is better to keep the original contribution history and discussion - a soft redirect is good enough, no need to erase the history. But above all what we need to do is recognize, whether it was a good article or one better shoved aside, it was not a wrong article - it is not something that a newbie should be blocked for creating. I want us to come out of this AfD with a clear statement of that. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are not unblock discussions - if you want a statement/declaration of that you should go to WP:ANI - this is not the place at all. Off2riorob (talk)

When I say "unblock Kiwi Bomb" I'm using a shorthand - what I mean is that the discussion should make clear that the article per se is not improper; and the article is all he had a chance to do. This is very important to me because I actually do think it can be transwikied, but I don't want that to be taken as meaning Kiwi Bomb should be blocked - the article is near the boundary between encyclopedia and dictionary definition, and new (or old) editors should not be penalized for sticking it in the wrong spot. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep There may be nothing more here than a DICDEF so we should consider that as a strong reason for deletion. However I strongly contest the unsupported allegations that the article itself is an attack page of that the mere mention of "Lewinsky" is some BLP violation so gross that the editor creating the article be blocked without discussion and the article speedily deleted. We need to slow down and have a calm discussion of the merits of the subject and the article. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of sources that start with a quote from an announcer for professional wrestling is not a good sign. Oral sex had been around for a great many years before Lewinsky became infamous; it doesn't seem quite fair to tag the young woman with a label a few clowns have tossed around.

Agreed that this page is a horrible mess, but I don't think anyone has done anything worth blockage. Loud chiding might be in order. PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was on the fence for a while but after reviewing the sources in the un-deleted article I now think that it meets the relevant guideline (WP:NEO), however distasteful the subject may be. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Disgusting and distasteful article topics are not problematic. There are clearly enough reliable sources about the word itself that we can reasonably have an article here. Since source discuss the history and use of the word, transwikying is suboptimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- reliable sourcing exists for the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. A few joking uses of the word do not constitute "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Edison (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~already covered elsewhere, and~~ not sufficient notability for a stand-alone article per WP:NEO policy. Most of the sources are primary sources, i.e. sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources. Also BLP concerns. --JN466 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where else on Wikipedia is it covered? I don't see it mentioned in either Lewinsky scandal or Monica Lewinsky. Will Beback talk 01:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, Will, thank you. I thought someone said it was covered in these article, and upon checking I find it isn't. Adding a paragraph in Lewinsky scandal will be the best solution, rather than having a standalone article. --JN466 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, there's reason for a paragraph, not an article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet no one has added such a paragraph. Will Beback talk 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Monica Lewinsky is only notable for a single reason, the scandal surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. This would be a third article dealing with her and the aspects of that scandal. Its a BLP violation to have Monica Lewinsky only notable for this sex scandal to be featured in three stand alone articles. If this neologism, is deemed either appropriate or significant enough to be noted in Wikipedia, a line or two in one of the other two articles is enough.(olive (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, and merge any useful content into a short paragraph into a parent article, per concerns raised both here and at the deletion review regarding WP:BLP issues. There's simply no reason to have an article that identifies a person's name with a sexual act. Even the similar "santorum" article (which presents much different concerns) did not survive as "Santorum (neologism)" but was renamed. L H M 02:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I think this meets WP:NEO and WP:N quite nicely. However, from an organizational viewpoint I think a merger to the Lewinsky scandal page with a short paragraph of coverage there would be workable and maybe even the best solution. I do oppose deletion. That is I don't see a point to delete and merge (in addition to the attribution problems, there just isn't a point here). Hobit (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP calls for the removal of unsourced or questionably sourced material about a living person. This article is impeccably sourced. Summoning a BLP violation here is best described at our essay Wikipedia:BLP_zealot: As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like "Roman Polanski was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"^[1]^[2] under this policy. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing a 22-year-old intern, who was seduced by the president to Polanski, who was charged with molesting a 13 year old girl? L H M 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, you have exposed the principal problem with broad enforcement of BLP. Where we are normally supposed to be supremely agnostic about the subject of the article, a liberal interpretation of BLP would force us to distinguish between those two cases. We should be just as suspicious about unsourced allegations in both articles. Note I did not say (nor did Wiwaxia) that sourced allegations be scrubbed from both articles. You would also be hard pressed to find literal policy which would force us to do the scrubbing. And yet here we are. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand alone article and merge summary of content to Lewinsky scandal. My76Strat ^talk 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Petty name calling without any impact on the English language. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Appearing on Law and Order and in the New York Times is good enough for notability for me. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Lewinsky scandal. Unfortunately, it appears in concise Partridge (Datzell's edition, 2008). And it seems to have entered the English language. Also, unfortunately, it has enough material to prevent a move to wiktionary via WP:NOTDICDEF. Similar to Gerrymandering, which is based in Elbridge Gerry. As JN466 says "[it lacks] secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources" (apart from 3 sexual slang books), so it could merged to the scandal article Most of the article is original research on how the primary sources use the term, and it could be trimmed during the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the Lewinsky (neologism) and Santorum (neologism) is that in the Lewinsky case, the word itself hasn't attracted controversy or coverage. There wasn't a campaign to elevate "Lewinsky" to a word, and there was no controversy about that word. This is why it's entirely self-consistent to argue "keep" for Santorum but "delete" for Lewinsky.
Now that we know we're not being inconsistent, it remains to consider the Lewinsky case in detail. There are two things the article might discuss: the word itself (as a dictionary definition) and the way the word arose (for which see Lewinsky scandal.) After you subtract (a) the dicdef and (b) the things that belong in Lewinsky scandal there isn't anything left. Delete this negative information about a living person per WP:BLP, and do it now, not later.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Used once or twice, over a decade ago. Not remotely encyclopedic. Not a definition, not anything.

^ "The slow-burning Polanski saga". BBC News. 28 September 2009.
^ Cieply, Michael. "In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today". The New York Times. 10 October 2009.

[1] "The slow-burning Polanski saga". BBC News. 28 September 2009.

[2] Cieply, Michael. "In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today". The New York Times. 10 October 2009.

[1]

[2]