Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poshitis

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poshitis

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

This neologism is a fleeting pop-culture creation, and it should be deleted because it lacks encyclopedic significance. The sources describe the origin of the word, but fail to give any broader commentary.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  20:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary or delete. Yes, it has a quite a few sources in the article, but a single story carried by multiple sources doesn't really establish notability to my satisfaction. As it stands, it's only a dictionary definition, and I don't see how it's going to expand beyond this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neologism does not appear to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can't see that any of Wikipedia's Core content policies has been broken WP:NPOV, V and OR. The article is well sourced from many different quality sources describing the articles content in different ways. Per WP:NEO we have "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". As this is the case there's no reason to delete this article according to WP:NEO. Nsaa (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Although there are numerous newspaper pieces on this "syndrome", they were all published within a few weeks of one another. (Expanding on my comment above, the reason the term does not meet Wiktionary's criteria is that they require "at least three independent instances spanning at least a year".) This looks suspiciously like the work of publicist during silly season. (By the way, Nsaa seems to have overlooked the bit of WP:NEO that does give a reason to delete: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.") Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what in WP:NOTNEWS covers this article not to be included? The second point about "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." do not adhere to this article since the article has been covered with more than 12 independent sources including The Daily Telegraph (UK), Daily Mail (UK), Sunday Express (UK), ABC News (US), Vogue, Huffington Post, Norsk rikskringkasting (Norways "BBC") and more. Nsaa (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources all came out in the same week and say essentially the same thing (as if they are reprints from Posh Spice's PR agency). There isn't anything that shows how this new word is catching on, either in academic medical journals or the pop-culture blogosphere.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of those articles that arguably falls into the cracks of Wikipedia and so requires us to use our common sense and editorial discretion. It did receive coverage in various news sources, but in mostly a "news of the weird" way. Ultimately, I agree with the nom's assessment.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2013 (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.