Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fontanne


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fontanne

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

Obvious neologism and also a case of things being made up. TN X Man 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Possibly also a hoax.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nonsense or a test, or AFD as a hoax. It was previously nominated for speedy as a test edit. This article contains text from the article Spork which is the common name for the utensil in question, and seeks to create another article to document the fact that some students at a high school allegedly decided to call it a "Fontanne." No references other than original research ("I heard it" has been presented to document that anyone even at that high school calls it that. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. No relevant results at Google News or Google Book Search. Edison (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to argue contesting the deletion of the page describing fontanne.

First, it's obvious this wouldn't show up on a Google News or Book Source. Not all Wikipedia article subjects do.

I also don't appreciate the way that the administrators have treated this posting - especially WikiDan61. In his first reply to my question of "why is this page marked for deletion?", he ended up "yelling" in all caps. If Wikipedia expects quality standards from contributors, why can't they hold themselves and their admins to the same?


 * As an interjectory note, I should point out that I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Just an editor interested in upholding the quality of Wikipedia.  If my all caps was interpreted as yelling, I apologize.  I intended it to be meant for emphasis, but I should have used bold instead of all caps.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Second, you don't want first person reporting? Understandable. If you want to hold that standard to yourselves for a second, please take a look at Google News, which your admin attempted to use to un-verify my article (above). Google News isn't a news organization. It's not official, and it doesn't take responsibility for the articles posted on it. It doesn't even produce any of the news it shows! It's aggregating the news of reporters from various sources, most (if not all) of which use first person experience in their reporting. So, in essence, you're trying to confirm that my use of first person reporting is wrong by attempting to disprove it with first person reporting.


 * Second interjection: No, Google News isn't a news organization. It's a news aggregator, which means that it collects information from reliable news organizations and presents them for search.  So searching Google News is the equivalent of searching MANY reliable news organizations simultaneously.  And I believe you are mistaking what counts as "first-person accounts".  If a reporter interviews a witness to a news event, the witness' account is a first-person account, but the reporter's writing on it is a second-person account, which is made more reliable by the fact that the reporter and his or her editors will check the facts in the first-person account before printing it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to quote something from your (Wikipedia's) article on Dialect. A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation... Essentially, couldn't it be argued that using the word fontanne instead of/in addition to the word spork is a form of dialect? The vocabulary is different and so is the pronunciation. I'd like to disregard the grammar part of that quote, because some dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese use the same grammar but different words, characters, or tone. I've not included this in the article yet, but as I noted at the top of the page, it's still under construction.


 * Final interjection: A dialect, like any other fact in Wikipedia, must be notable and verifiable. The use of a neologismy by a handful of people may, in their own minds, constitute a dialectual variation, but this does not make the dialect globally notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't take this the wrong way. I'm very sympathetic to the admins at Wikipedia and realize that they have a hard job to fulfill, but I really wish that they'd step back and take a look at what they're doing, too.

Go ahead and delete the fontanne article if you wish. The world's watching. Jacobw125 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure it meets any speedy criterion, but it's clearly an attempt to use Wikipedia inappropriately. To the extent the world may be watching this article, they'll be glad to know we are maintaining our standards. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Many times I have "saved" articles nominated for deletion by finding books, magazine articles, and newspaper article which have some coverage of the subject. I did not note the utter absence of your neologism as proof it was not notable enough for an article. I was just demonstrating that the deletion recommendation was not an arbitrary and capricious one reflecting a failure to do due diligence by searching for references. No, "fontanne" is not a "dialect." It is a neologism that has not caught on anywhere. A [Dialect|dialect]] is a regional speech pattern. You and your two friends do not constitute a "region" or a "social class." Does "Go ahead and delete the fontanne article if you wish" mean that the article can now be deleted under CSD G7, as a speedy request by the author? Edison (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Region article. "A region is a geographical term that is used in various ways among the different branches of geography. In general, a region is a medium-scale area of land or water, smaller than the whole areas of interest..." Technically, the use of the word fontanne in this case does qualify for a dialect of English, because it's not just "me and my two friends" using it and, to my knowledge, the people who are using it are spread out over at least two cities. "Regions can be defined by physical characteristics, human characteristics, and functional characteristics." Both human and functional characteristics are unique to the area containing the people using the word "fontanne". Again, another qualification for a dialect.
 * Comment

No, it's not a request for a speedy delete. Nice try. :-)

Jacobw125 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Request to allow the author of the article to change his argument. I wish to argue that the usage of the word "fontanne" over more than "me and my two friends" and their respective locations classifies the area containing them as a region, which in turn allows the use of the word "fontanne" to be classified as a dialect of the language English.    Jacobw125 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice try. I disagree with your assertions about the claimed usage by you and your friends, or even the claimed "people in two cities" constituting a "region" and making the neologism a "dialect." And what are the reliable sources (other than your original research) to verify your assertions that people in two cities (which?) use the term? Edison (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm in Chapel Hill. I use this word. I now challenge anyone else (from another city) to verify that they use the word 'fontanne' instead of the word 'spork'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobw125 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentYour statement isoriginal research and "I've heard of it" arguments are not any more persuasive in AFD than "I like it." Reliable sources are required. Edison (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was surprised and appalled at the treatment this page has been getting over the past two days. I personally consider this word a part of my vocabulary. I also happen to live in Cary, which I suppose would qualify this word for a dialect in a region. Spiceboy12 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) — Spiceboy12 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * CommentYour statement constitutes original research and "I've heard of it" arguments are not any more persuasive in AFD than "I like it." Reliable sources are required.Edison (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe there's a difference between an "I've heard of it" or an "I like it" and an "I USE it". Personal experience is invariably more reliable than speculation, right? Jacobw125 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No, "I use it" is still original research. Edison (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. One word does not a dialect make; it can, however, make a Wiktionary entry if it's verifiable in reliable sources. This one fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well worded. Perhaps I'll attempt to submit it there later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobw125 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.