Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic bitch


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  09:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Basic bitch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has a number of issues. Most prominently notability. The term is also a Neologism and not appropriate for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. Keithonearth (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic satisfies Notability; the article already lists references from Paper, Time, NYMag, The American Reader, The Guardian, Vogue, and Forbes that are dedicated to the topic. The topic also satisfies WP:NEO, as (1) the phrase is in wide use, and (2) there are treatments in secondary sources. And the article satisfies the following paragraph, WP:WORDISSUBJECT, in that it does go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry; it provides history and commentary on the phrase, both with references. I agree that the article has "issues", in that a few sentences appear to include original research, but that problem can be corrected; it isn't a rationale for deletion. Melchoir (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (notify)  @ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (gossip)  @ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SLANG and WP:NOT, "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SLANG isn't a rationale for deletion. WP:NOT is a rationale for deletion, but it doesn't apply to this article. It says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content." This article does contain more than a definition; it has already been expanded with additional encyclopedic content. Melchoir (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination complains that this is a neologism and I agree. The slang is a deletion issue because it's the article title, which unacceptably offensive and colloquial.  The sources provided are shallow opinion pieces – routine tabloid journalism.  The idea that liking Sex and the City is a key trait shows what junk this is.  We're an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary.   Andrew D. (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be precise about the issue. If by "neologism" you mean a phrase coined in the last five years, then yes, it's a phrase coined in the last five years. There is no policy on Wikipedia that says we can't or shouldn't have articles on such phrases. If you're referring specifically to WP:NEO, that policy does not apply to this article. The article draws on secondary sources that describe the phrase's existing popularity; it is not an attempt to popularize the phrase. Yes, the phrase "basic bitch" is offensive, but there is no policy that says titles should be censored, either. Compare the many specimens in Category:Pejorative terms for people. (Even if the article did need a new title, that's a job for WP:Requested moves, not a delete !vote at AfD.) Finally, the sources vary in how shallow they are; the articles from NYMag, Paper, and The American Reader aren't shallow at all. No one here is advocating that people who like Sex and the City should be denigrated on that basis. The fact that some people do so is tragic and stupid! But Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from describing trends just because they're tragic and stupid. I'm concerned that some of the negative responses to the article are motivated by the following logic: It's got a naughty word in it, and encyclopedias can't have naughty words, and the whole thing makes me feel bad, so let me think of a plausible-sounding excuse to kill it. Honestly, when I first saw that the article existed, I expected it to be garbage, too. But it's useful and informative, and there's enough depth in the sources to work with. Melchoir (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase may have been coined recently but the underlying concepts are not new. We already have content for the concept of being an ordinary person at average joe and man in the street.  The idea of conforming to fashion trends is covered at pages such as fashion victim and designer label.  We even have other neologisms covering similar ground such as normcore.  Per WP:DICDEF, we shouldn't spawn new pages every time someone uses new slang to express existing ideas.  I'm not persuaded that this phrase is precise enough or common enough to merit being a blue link.  For another policy supporting this see WP:NOT. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those other articles are related, but they don't cover the same ground. The references describe "basic bitch" as a female identifier that suggests social and class privilege. Unless I've missed it, those sources don't argue that the phrase (or the people it targets) is synonymous with those other terms. WP:NOT applies to articles that attempt to be primary sources. This article is the opposite: a tertiary source that references secondary sources. Melchoir (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Social and class privilege? I've no idea where you're getting that from as the phrase just seems to mean "ordinary woman", which is quite the opposite.  The lead tells us that the phrase is ambiguous and so it seems that we don't have a clearly defined topic here.  I still don't agree that the sources are adequate and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in Abby Schreiber's article. Now that you're aware of that, if I were to emphasize that point in the article, would it change your !vote? Melchoir (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it when I look up extremely popular phrases from earlier decades, there isn't a wikipedia page dedicated to it? Jive and Chill Pill from the 80s don't warrant a page. Talking Head from the 60s. Submarine races from the 50s. These are just a couple random ones I threw into the search that came to mind, but I'm sure there's more. Point is, there's a much higher propensity to include these fad sayings into wikipedia before they've even had a chance to stand the test of time. I think this article should be deleted. Gtwy (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to decide whether a phrase warrants a Wikipedia article without searching for secondary sources covering that particular phrase! It has nothing to do with how popular the phrase is or was. For all you or I know, every one of those phrases does merit an article, and nobody has gotten around to writing one yet. Well, we don't need to guess about Basic bitch; sources have already been identified. The topic doesn't need to "stand the test of time". The sources aren't going anywhere. Melchoir (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That just sounds like an other stuff argument to me. ~ booyabazooka 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per User:Melchoir and User:Gtwy. Clubjustin4 (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Melchoir has advocated a "keep" position. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG – coverage includes New York, MTV, Salon, The Huffington Post, and Cosmopolitan. SLANG refers to article content, not article topics, and this article discusses the history of the term and interpretations of it, making it more than merely a dictionary entry. This nomination and the delete !votes reek of "just unencyclopedic" and "I don't like it". –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The biggest argument for deletion is WP:NEO, but that guideline says: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." However, as per Melchoir and Chase, there is enough coverage in secondary sources that prove that this is ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk  16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I waded into this 100% sure it was a non-notable neologism. Actually, I learned that is a notable neologism. Passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece. Nicely done article, by the way. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable neologism. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:47, 1 January 2015 (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.