Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CatharticLament


 * 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: Speedily deleted per snowball clause. Page is not written in the style of an encyclopedia article; it is about a non-notable phrase (I maintain that it is not really a neologism - rather, a set of two random words that sometimes happen to be used together); page may well serve as spam for a set of personal websites; creator had attempted to influence this discussion/vote using sockpuppet accounts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CatharticLament

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable neoglism. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary- article also seems to contain original research. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom as non-notable neologism and OR. Only reference to someone having used that phrase on page is to blog entitled catharticlament.com:  the most recent of its comments have to do with the problems with dating strippers, the music in stripclubs, and something about Walmart.  It's not exactly a reliable source. RJC Talk 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave it Why delete a page with interesting ideas? Sure it references some website used to complain about dating strippers, but there are lots of other sites on wikipedia that are just as silly. Maddox who is totally rude and disrespectful in nature to women on his website has a wiki entry. I think this page is fine and should be included. The page isn't really an add for anything. It is an explanation of a term or idea. Wumpilicious--Wumpilicious (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note comments on article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Kannie | talk 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. I can't find any secondary sources on this term that would make me think it could possibly be expanded beyond its current state. Redfarmer (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phrase used elsewhere The phrase 'cathartic lament' has been used elsewhere.  Page 13 of the book "In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century of Perestroikas" By Bruce Grant    Evilsboitoy --Evilsboitoy (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let it be A few of you have stated that Wiki is not a dictionary, but several terms are defined online at Wikipedia. So, to use that alone as a reason isn't fair.  The person who created this is trying to create a new term or idea from something that has been around for ages.  I say let it go, what's the big deal.  I don't see where it gives attention to any one thing, other than it's idea of a new movement being cathartic lament. Degradedfaces--Degradedfaces (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phrase has been used elswehere Another example of the phrase 'cathartic lament' being used elsewhere.   This work pays homage to the work of John Porter Houston, who wrote extensively on style, rhetoric, and narrative and poetic techniques in Western European literature.  The book says a cathartic lament leads to opposition between consolation and lament in Virgil's Fifth Eclogue.  The two words together create a new type of lamenting.  A public release of emotion which creates relief by suspending progression of anger or saddness. Evilsboitoy
 * Phrase used in music review This is London UK uses the term in a music review to describe a song about a bad relationship. "Cato as a Pun combines a cathartic lament about a dismal relationship with a satisfyingly tight fusion of synth pop and minimal early Sixties rock."  See for yourself at .  My point in all this is that cathartic laments are very popular, seen everywhere, I this post does is describe and provide examples of and history of th words themselves which help create this new movement. Evilsboitoy--Evilsboitoy (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It might be easily missed that several of the above statements are made by the same person (the page's creator).  The other person in favor of keeping the phrase suggests we ignore the policy on neologisms. RJC Talk 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I created this and I posted proof of the term used elsewhere because the message on my user page states that I could site proof of why I think it should be kept. So, it isn't some big secret that I created this and posted proof of the term used in other places when someone else said they searched to find the term elsewhere and couldn't. Also, it is more a movement than a new word or coined phrase because those words already exist in our language.  Evilsboitoy--Evilsboitoy (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am glad to see this idea listed in Wikipedia. Although it does give reference to two different, and often rude websites, it also discusses the religious history of the words. Perhaps the two words together do work to define a movement with the society in which we live.Wumpilicious--Wumpilicious (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete a marginally coherent essay riddled with POV and OR proposing a neologism without any notability as a phrase. May be promotion for a blog, to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom: clearly WP:NOR and WP:NEO that fails notability. Mh29255 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Users Wumpilicious contribs and Degradedfaces contribs have never contributed to Wikipedia, except for this debate.  They also sign their name in precisely the same manner as Evilsboitoy contribs.  These are the only accounts that have opposed deleting the article.  This looks very much like a violation of WP:Sockpuppet.  RJC Talk 08:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)  Update; I've begun a page on this Suspected sock puppets/Evilsboitoy. RJC Talk 08:51, 14 January 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.