Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjortis


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fjortis

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

Not properly referenced and not notable Damicatz (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * I have a somewhat hard time figuring out why this Scandinavian word should be covered in an English encyclopedia. Punkmorten (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is, in fact, quite a widespread expression in Sweden. That doesn't motivate it being on the English wiki though. Foreign Language dicdef Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is the internets, there is a high chance English speakers will come across this term in their travels... as a learner of Scandinavian languages this is of interest to me, in particular the non-standard use as slang. Besides, the term might be in Swedish, but the article isn't. Please remember that we must counter geographical bias if we are to be successful as an encyclopedia. I personally find this article useful, encyclopedic, and apparently notable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider this geographical bias, I would consider it linguistic bias in so far as the term is slang in a foreign language. Fjortis is simply a slang form of the swedish word for fourteen, "fjorton" and could best be translated as a "fourteenie" - a term I just made up. Certainly linguistic bias is inherent in this english language encyclopaedia. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep Weak Keep Much sociolinguistic research (in English) is cross-cultural. This term reminds me of another that is just now crossing the Atlantic: chav. Yes, it's used by English speakers primarily, but the point is that it's a potent, interesting term with sociological importance. I enjoyed learning the term "fjortis," and would just like to see the entry expanded, perhaps to include other Scandinavian slang (which perhaps could be an entry?).Jlg4104 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's more, a quick google search reveals that the term has a pretty good-sized entry at urbandictionary.com. It's also a genre of porn, apparently... Jlg4104 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to "weak keep" per discussion with h8er below. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable in English. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * globalize dude. It doesn't matter in what language it is notable. What matter is that teh article be in English and geared towards English speakers. The majority of the English speakers in the world are not native to the english speaking world, BTW. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It matters if it's a foreign word. If a foreign word is to be included it has to be notable bro. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is notable in the context it is used, as part of a study of slang and youth culture - it turned out a small but significant amount of results in Google Scholar, most of them in English, and all of them related to the social sciences. Just because you don't know it in your native environs doesn't mean the rest of us don't find it notable. By the way, you are using the word "foreign" incorrectly, as languages are seldom associated with one specific country, in particular in the case of English - foreign to what? If the USA, then Britain pops immediately as a foreign country, ditto vice-versa - and I am ignoring other countries whose official languages include English, such as India. I find your lack of curiosity disturbing, because the one thing that encyclopedia editors need to be is curious and bold. If you like to delete cruft, I got plenty of that to show you, but leave legitimate, useful, and entirely encyclopedic content be, specially if it conforms to all of our policies regarding content. Lastly, you used "comprende" wrong; it is a third-person form of the word. I think you wanted to say "comprendes?". If you are going to try and use a language, at least have the common courtesy of using it correctly. Understood? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of substantial coverage. There are lots of foreign words I don't know. Some of them may be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources and arguments presented here should be enough to establish notability - which is objective. Further investigation revels its use both in scholarly and news sources on the googletubes, both as a simple usage of the term and speaking about the term - all of them in Swedish or Bokmat/Norwegian (fortunately for us, google has a decent translator). I actually didn't know the term until I read this AfD, and I feel enriched in my knowledge, and thankful for the editor who recognized the notability of the term and boldly created the article. That is why I think we should keep. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: on notability. I've already suggested a "keep" above, but I wanted to add a comment. This a good test case for the question of notability. Probably according to Wikipedia guidelines, the term "fjortis" is only weakly notable in English. It has received way, way less coverage than "chav," per Google News, and has been the subject of much less scholarly discussion, per Google Scholar. However, since the term has begun to be discussed in the context of the social sciences within the U.S., it is perhaps where "chav" was ten years ago. I know WP is not a crystal ball, so I can't argue that someday "fjortis" will be as covered as "chav" is now. But I'm pretty stuck on the point that the word strikes me-- as someone who is not a sociolinguist but occasionally plays one in the classroom-- as interesting to have learned about and is quite likely to be interesting to anyone in a similar boat who encounters it here. So consider this a kind of gut feeling that the word belongs here in the English WP.Jlg4104 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparison with the term chav is somewhat misleading. Chav is a term which implies a number of political, social and economic factors. It indictes a style of clothes, certain behaviours, cars and certain music. Even in Sweden, fjortis is a far less established term. Etymologically it is simply a personalization and dimunization of "fjorton" (fourteen) and in most contexts merely provides an implication that a person is like, or exhibits behaviour like, a fourteen year old. The article being discussed tries to attach certain behaviours to the term and make it a behaviour - but this is questionable at best. The second paragraph looks more like an amateur description of teenage psychology during Adolesence than a significant deviation from norms. In fact, any sociobehavioural connection to this term is almost certainly original research. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I might change my preference to "weak keep," but in part also on the basis of the notability problem. You do sound like you know what you're talking about, although some of what you're saying doesn't really, in my mind, discount the possibility of this being improved into a worthwhile article. You say, for example, it is "simply" a personalization and dimunization, etc. Those are just linguistic practices that could happen to apply to terms of greater or lesser notability, and the "simply" is a value judgment. Also, I'm not sure what you mean that "any sociobehavioral research" regarding this term is "original research" in the WP context. The issue was (I thought) that there is a trickle of academic research starting to grow which takes this term into account, and that trickle represents at least the beginnings of notability. The article itself may have OR problems, but that's not what I thought was the issue.Jlg4104 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think notability is the problem. I think the jist of my opinion is that this is best translated as "teenie" or "kiddie" as a derogatory term. The problem is that that's all. The mere presence of the word in SAOL (the Swedish Academies list of words) indicates this as a foreign language dicdef. My final comment in my previous statement was a little unclear. What I was suggesting is that there is no research (which I am aware of, of course) connecting this word with social, behavioural or economic trends and that any such connections made on the page would be likely to be either original research or simply made up on the spot. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. I'm accordingly changing my pref (above) to "weak keep." I still think it has *some* potential, but from all I can gather, fjortis is not nearly as significant in English as chav.


 * Comment: Maybe there is an equivalent concept in English, that this can become a section in, then redirected to. I don't know what it would be though. --Closeapple (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect the problem with finding an equivalent english article is that an article such as Teenie or Kiddie as a dicdef containing "mean word to describe someone as childish" would be deleted or transwiki'd to wiktionary. Child, Pre-teen, Teenager, Adolescence or even Adolescent psychology are potential redirects but all miss the point that this is a derogatory way of addressing someone as being young or behaving like a youth. Even childish is simply a one sentence dicdef on a disambig page - and thats the most similar word I can think of. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:01, 30 December 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.