Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-izzle


 * 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   soft redirect. soft redirect to wiktionary, I left the page history so feel free to transwiki if there is any usable material here Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-izzle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article


 * The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.


 * The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.


 * The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.


 * There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: -izzle, and a list of -izzle's there.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirect using wi. I think it's reasonable to think there could be an encyclopedia article (or redirect to a section of an article) on the topic, but the current entry is not appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not with this title I think. And in any case it's terribly lexical; and is already in the lexical companion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not mean it could not improved by focusing on the history surrounding its derivation. Currently though, it is indeed not that sort of article, hence why redirect is appropriate middle-ground. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kizzeep because I wanted to say that because I think there is a minimal amount of sourcing and in the regular search that can establish some notability. MuZemike 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly notable as a dictionary entry, but it's just a purely lexical scheme for forming words, and there's a very good entry in the lexical companion for it, and the name is invalid.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep. It is not about a word or suffix per se, but about a certain lingo fad. - Altenmann >t 23:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lingo is exactly what goes in the wiktionary. The whole article is etymological, and the material is practically identical to that in the wiktionary. It seems to be just a dictionary entry, in the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it's mediocre now doesn't mean it can't improve in the future. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keepizzle (I also wanted to say that) I found two articles  that assert its notability as a part of pop culture. This could be more than a dictionary entry if more emphasis was put on the invention and impact. But then there's WP:DICDEF...  talking  birds  01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly notable pop culture dictionary entry in the wikipedia, which has a policy against that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that this leopard can change its spots, as the topic is inherently dictionary like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Kizzle would be the correct form rather than *Keepizzle. This is not a dicdef, this is (the beginnings of) an encyclopedia article about a morpheme. WP:DICDEF doesn't mean that words and parts of words are not legitimate topics of encyclopedia articles. +Angr 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the point, it's an article about/with a name that is a morpheme. The wikipedia doesn't have those.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, it does. One is even a featured article. Some words have enough to be said about them to warrant an encyclopedia article, and the "-izzle" morpheme may well be one of them. This article already tells us more than the Wiktionary entry can or should, or there's still lots of room for improvement. +Angr 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thou is not a morpheme.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the encyclopedic knowledge you claim that this article could have is not currently present. Can you give us an example of encyclopedic knowledge that this article lacks that would be inappropriate for the wiktionary?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Free morphemes are morphemes too, and both bound and free morphemes may be interesting enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. As for encyclopedic information the article could have but that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, there's the fact that the -izzle word game/cryptolect has become notable enough that at least one restaurant has used it as a pun in its name. The fact that -izzle did not originate with Snoop Dogg but was popularized by him also does not belong at Wiktionary (though it's there anyway, incorrectly under the "Etymology" section). There's some encyclopedic information at fo shizzle, too, that should be removed from Wiktionary and added to Wikipedia, if it can be sourced, since it's not etymological. +Angr 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although etymology is defined in the wiktionary as "An account of the origin and historical development of a word." for obvious reasons, that transitively applies to morphemes, and that's doubtless why the history of suffixes is present in all dictionary entries on suffixes that I've seen. Given the integral part of Snoop Dogg to popularising this particular suffix, I completely fail to see how the wiktionary entry mentioning him is anything but appropriate, and also fail to see how this requires an encyclopedia entry.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. As it currently stands, this duplicates the better presented wiktionary entry, and so doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I imagine that it will be possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the term, but this isn't one. If you were to write, one your best bet would be to delete all that is here and reference the Wiktionary entry to give you a couple of sentences of the introductory paragraph. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transclude to Wiktionary, then soft redirect as above, using Wi, per WP:DICDEF --Tckma (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:SNOOPDOGG. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.