Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akroness


 * 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Akroness
PROD removed without discussion. neologism with no evidence given of much use outside some web forum... see Avoid neologisms. Gets 4,000 google results, but from just 10 total different websites. No Amazon, Google News or scholar results. Also, despite the claims of the article, I get no results for the term searching the archives of the paper that is claimed to have used the term twice |&p_product=AK&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=akroness&s_dispstring=akroness%20AND%20date(last%20180%20days)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=-180qzD&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no --W.marsh 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominater. --Sbluen 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Michael 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, well-reasoned nomination. Mango juice talk 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete "Is only fully understood by residents of the city" is something not worthy in Wikipedia, the article is too short, way too sloppy, not in the form of an article, and, simply, nonsense. Mangojuice, please delete it now. Kitia 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. I gotta say I would think that something that has grown from an utterance in a forum to over 4,000 google hits and it's placement in several people's prominent vernacular over a short course of time is in and of itself worthy of a wiki entry. The Newspaper that has used this term in articles does not keep open public archives of material past 2 weeks as it seeks to recieve payment for past archived content. Granted, this may not be newsworthy to someone outside of Akron, Ohio but to us.. it is. What about links in articles. For example in the Akron wikipedia entry is it of note to anyone besides Akronites that there is a Talk radio station at WAKR 1590? or that there's a Downtown Akron partnership? Hows is it grounds for removal based off of the fact that it "Is only fully understood by residents of the city"? Part of the terminology's charm and long lasting nature is that it's based off of local flavor. For you to call that nonsense, simply because you don't get it, is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfa eljefe (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. NN boardcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. Firstly, as a member of the www.coolpeoplefromakron.com forums and website, I don't appreciate your rudeness, and I agree with the above "Don't Delete" entry on every point made. Simply becasue it is a local term, one used by the residents of that city, doesn't mean it is not appropriate for "Wikipedia."  A child in Akron may look up such a term as "akroness" to use in a local culture HS newpaper article, term paper, or professional journalist using it in an article that you couldn't find (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/columnists/david_giffels/14617541.htm   or   http://www.kansas.com/mld/ohio/news/columnists/david_giffels/13966638.htm).  By the way, it hit on almost 5000 on google, and 12 websites. And in rebuttal to the sloppiness comment, Kitia, would it be too hard to post something like "Akroness of this entry may cause deletion, please keep entries in article form." instead of simply tossing it aside without any contemplation, therefore giving the person/persons a chance to tidy up their entry? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.23.191 (talk • contribs)
 * Uh, neither of those articles seem to use the term "Akroness". I think you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about... ultimately we just summarize information that has already been covered in published sources. Period. See WP:V and WP:NOR (and the above mentioned Avoid neologisms). This really is not negotiable. There are plenty of sites that don't have this requirement (nearly any other than Wikipedia, really), see Alternative outlets for a start. --W.marsh 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete. Both of those articles use the word as summarized in the Wiki entry in question. CTRL-F is handy for searching in page. As to your point that Wikipedia is merely for summarizing information that has already been published.. The term 'Akroness' has been published on CPFA, used as a title/theme in multiple DVD creations, referenced in above linked articles, and found it's way into the common vernacular of city residents. All things start out small, as ideas passed from one to another and then grow from that seed. This phrase is way past the seed form and I'd call it more of a sapling. A community tree if you will. I support it staying for it's documented popular culture roots and continual growth in our fair city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfa eljefe (talk • contribs)
 * Don't Delete. Uh, your professionalism is flying out the window...sorry about that. You (and I quote) "summarize information that has already been covered in published sources. Period." Exactly what we are trying to do; give you the definition of a word that has been used more and more since it's conception, in multiple published sources.  I doubt everyone in Akron got it the first time Mr. Giffels wrote it into his newspaper article.  He used the more editorial appropriate spelling of "Akron-ness," but whether you say goodbye or bye bye it holds the same concept.  We don't know, but he may have originally written "akroness" and when his editor saw it, asked him to correct it.  While I was getting my degree in Mass Media I had many an article corrected, spelling grammer, etc.  But I digress...saying that simply because a word, phrase, expression, etc. is a neologism, meaning that it is simply new, not the second definition in Merriam-Websters Dictionary of "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic," fails the arguementative test of tradition.  Simply becasue something is new doens't mean that it isn't worthy of note.  Also, I agree in geological terms the word is but a nano second old, but a word that been used in the regular vernacular of many an Akronite for the past 2 years, I stand, is worthy of said notoriety.  All we want is our word to become notorious, and not in the negative conotation that a "bad guy" would be considered, just well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.23.191 (talk • contribs)
 * Can I eat those meatpuppets or sock those sockpuppets now? --Kitia 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Or is that, "Wikipedia is not for something you made up at the Airdock one day"? :) —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. See now you're just insulting us, and that is rude. I don't appreciate that.  I can only assume that you make "ad hominum" attacks becasue you, at this point in our discussion, have run out of intelligent things to say.  I am disappointed that the people at wikipedia, a website that has very much good information, would be such poor arguers.  Though amusing, your euphemisms for "deletion" are still uncalled for.  And to make a rebutttal to your comment C. Fred, somebody invented the first words at the so-called "airdock" one day many years ago.  The first words weren't instantly used by every speaking person on the planet.  When American Sign Language was developed by Galludet it was only used by 3 people until they started teaching other deaf people the language.  So our word is not yet used by the mass populous, neither is the word "dubs" (meaning 20" wheels on a vehicle) but you have a Wiki page for that.  Thanks.


 * 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.