Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per consensus, welcoming anyone to find even more refs to head off a 3rd nom in the future (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloviate
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides Rtphokie (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because article not a usage guide (refuting nominator's argument) and subject is notable. Nowhere in the article does it guide or presume to guide readers regarding the usage of the subject; an article about a slang is not automatically a user guide for that slang. In addition, a brief google search shows it has been written about in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. The page needs a good copy edit, but does not warrant a delete.- Samuel  Tan  09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't feel much can be said about this to create a full article, infact everything covered in this bloviated article, is covered in the very short and precise wiktionary definition, minus the unnecesary and unreferenced coments. On a slightly less serious note, i think we should can it because it's only in Merriam-Webster, but i notice it's not in the Oxford English, and we should only take real dictionaries seriously. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For now I'm going to stay neutral on this, and see how this discussion unfolds. We can define the slang word, and it appears to be commonly used. I believe there's a chance we can get some information from reliable sources on this that isn't a definition, so I'm going to see if any sources like that are brought up here. If we can't find any reliable sources that don't just offer a definition, then we should delete this for violating WP:NOT. If we can find information thats not just a definition, then we should keep this.--SJP (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This world has a rich cultural history and several reliable sources which discuss the word specifically (rather than just using it.) Google news archive shows 616 entries for "bloviate" including the Rocky Mountain News (1994) calling it "a beautiful verb" in "'BLOVIATE' A DELIGHTFUL, UNDISCOVERED VERB ." The New York Times discussed its history and application in "Journal; The Bloviators' Ball "(1999) and earlier in 1972. Its long absence from dictionaries was discussed in the Boston Globe (April 4, 1999):"The real mystery is why the lexicographers ignored bloviate for so many years. ... Like disconnect, bloviate somehow eluded the radar of most slang ..." If multiple reliable sources have substantial coverage in discussions of the word, it seems to be notable. Most dictionary words lack such coverage (as opposed to simple usage). (Rather than deletion, perhaps it could be redirected to one of the blowhard radio talkers. I could make a recommendation ;<) Edison (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Edison's sourcing above provides notability and sufficient material to move the article beyond a strict dicdef. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (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.