Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnography


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Carnography

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

Just an article with a dicdef of a neologism. Only cites list duplicate use of term, but do not demonstrate widespread use or notability. Only info about the term that'd be encyclopedic is already be covered on one of a number of similar articles such as Splatter film, Slasher film, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has potential to be more than a definition judging from the external links given. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you expand upon that claim? Have you actually looked at the content on the pages the links go to? Because, having seen them, there's not much there. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Keep It's not even much of a neologism, as the reference from Time magazine dates back to 1972 while referring to the novel First Blood (That's the novel, not even the later film with Sly). Needs work but doesn't need deleting. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Neutral, see comment below.  Whether this is technically a neologism or not, it would appear to be a word with very little currency.  The apparent majority of Google searches seems to bring forth exactly what we're doing: wondering whether this is a real word, and tracing its apparent origin.  The references given attest only to its sporadic appearance in print, decades apart, in articles devoted to other subjects; they aren't about "carnography" itself, and as such do not count as substantial treatments of the underlying idea.  The substance of the article is more than adequately covered under titles such as splatter film and violence in the media. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just did a complete, sourced rewrite of the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it's still not notable enough for an article. We're not Wiktionary/Urban dictionary. So any slang term documented in a handful of sources means that we should write an article about it? Give me a break. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article currently contains more than a dictionary entry would, and there is a lot more that can be said about the subject. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion as well.  Also, I wouldn't call it a slang term; it's more of a literary criticism term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Definitely a keeper now. Nice job. -- BlueSquadron Raven  19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a "literary criticism" term. I would say that it's a tendentious term, apparently invented by people who disapprove of graphic violence in entertainment, coined in order to make a suspect analogy to pornography.  It's one of those words that encapsulates an entire point of view, and as such any article that raises the word to the status of an encyclopedia subject appears to endorse it and seems non-neutral: especially since people who don't endorse the underlying idea are unlikely to use the word.  That said, we can have articles on similar pejorative labels, and the new version is much improved.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points Smerdis, and ones I think should most definitely be taken into account when editing or expanding the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep never heard this word before. its definitely obscure in use, but within the genres that its used to discuss, it has some provenance. as long as the article reflects its use primarily within film and literary criticism, and is NOT a commonly used word, it should stay. i think its a neat word now that ive heard it, but i wouldnt use it myself, for fear of sounding like a postmodern geekazoid critic.i added link (from an ip address) that seems relevant, one of its earlier uses. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep New to me also. Shows the benefit of a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual subject of the commentary introduced into this article seems to be Violent media--pejoratively termed "carnography," as Smerdis notes. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and because of NPOV, Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on various loaded words that all denote the same topic--those would be POV forks. To avoid the basic POV problem, which Smerdis also recognized, a merge of some of this material into Violent media seems in order. As for the etymology of the word "carnography," that material belongs nowhere on Wikipedia, because, again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep per notability and tremendous efforts by User:LinguistAtLarge.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 21 April 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.