Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absurdistan


 * 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 In Absurdistan, article keep s you!. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:04Z 

Absurdistan

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable nickname for Turkmenistan. I don't deny that some people might refer to Turkmenistan as "Absurdistan", but the nickname certainly isn't important enough for its own article. At best it should be referred to in passing in the main Turkmenistan article. —Psychonaut 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * merge as suggested or merge into article about late dictator. Also listed as another connotation at -stan. Chris 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and rewrite, 3,300,000 Google hits. The name is used not only for Turkmenistan but also for all other absurdly ruled countries. They started to use it for the Czechoslovakia in 1980s, and since then, it was applied for other countries. See the German Wikipedia, it is well sourced there.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding how deletion works. We are discussing whether to delete the article in its current form, not in some hypothetical future form.  Unless you (or someone else) rewrite the article into something useful which establishes the term's notability, and do so before the deletion debate is over, the article should not be kept.  However, a deletion of the article in its current form will not prejudice the creation of a properly-sourced one of the same name at some point in the future. —Psychonaut 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you misunderstand it. WP:DEL says: if "Article needs improvement" then the solution is "List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. See also Wikipedia:Pages needing attention" and not delete. AfD is more about the notability of the subject of the article and not about the current poor quality of the article. - Moreover before AfD you should have checked the history and you would probably at worst reverted it to redirect to Absurdistan (film).--Ioannes Pragensis 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable dicdef/WP:NEO Danny Lilithborne 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bingo. A nn neologism with 3,300,000 google hits and a movie titled Absurdistan? --Ioannes Pragensis 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep an article about the book, which has wide coverage (I changed the article to reflect this), but the neologism we can do without. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to translate quickly from the German article to prove that the term is much more important than you think. Hope it is enough even in this Wikipedia Absurdistan.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Switching to delete as the editors on the article seem determined to cover the neologism (WP:NOT) instead of the arguably-notable book. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Guy, just for your information, the page WP:NOT does not containt the word "neologism" :-) - the problem of neologisms in Wikipedia is covered by WP:NEO, but this guideline defines them as "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities"; this word is used at least since 1980s, so it is not a neologism according to the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ioannes Pragensis (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Keep - Widely used socially critical term that has even appeared in mainstream media for more than 15 years. As notable as Cockaigne. Original deletion request no longer relevant or valid because article no longer as originally and erroneously claims this is only used as a nickname for one country. --Espoo 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As notable as Cockaigne? Really?  So which household name composer has written an overture called Absurdistan? Because that's pretty much the only current common usage of Cockaigne of which I'm aware. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're confusing several things here. If you're trying to say that Cockaigne is not notable because it is not in current common usage, you haven't understood that encyclopedias also include information on older notable cultural concepts. Use of the term Cockaigne in the Brothers Grimm fairy tale and perhaps two other equally notable works of art would be sufficient reason for a separate article. In addition, you don't understand that Cockaigne is very commonly used in other languages today, so it is commonly used in English translations of these modern and older works. In addition, you're ignoring all the other points raised by myself and others concerning Absurdistan and trying to derail the discussion by only talking about my simile. Are you seriously claiming that a term regularly used even in mainstream media shouldn't have an article in WP? If Absurdistan weren't used in mainstream media and even if it didn't occur in literary magazines, WP would need an article since it already occurred in several works of art ranging from at least one novel and at least one film even to a Mickey Mouse comic book. If you think WP's coverage of cultural phenomena and concepts should be less inclusive than Disney comics, then my last hope is to make you see the fact that Absurdistan is at least as notable as banana republic and not a synonym. --Espoo 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Latest rewrite provided several reputable citations and shows the term has been in use for quite some time. --Dgies 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article no longer only about Turkmenistan - word is a sociocultural meme in its own right. Hell- I think that for most of its 20th Century history, you could have called Mexico an Adburdistan. - Eric 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I must apologize, as I clearly did not know what this term was and assumed based on the context I saw it in that it only pertanied to Turkmenistan. The current version is excellent. KazakhPol 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but re-write, the term is used frequently to describe absurd consequences of faulty legislation Alf photoman 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. 1ne 19:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. - Kittybrewster 08:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - a succinct explanation of a cultural description. Peter Ellis 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.242.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as it is an interesting and culturally relevant term. Bonus Onus 07:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from a Czech: the term is alive and kicking here. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. An interesting read. Owen 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, more a cultural phenomenon than a nickname. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears that this word has strong and notable use in Europe, and it is an important goal of WP to become less US-centric.  Also, the term was used in American English in the NYT and The Nation over 15 years ago, so it's no longer a brand-new neologism in the US, either.   Wittyname 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hardly an ephemeral term/concept, as the multiple usages listed demonstrate. Deletion requester and supporters seem to be labouring under various misapprehensions. Larry 1624 04:45, 27 December 2006 (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.