Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glomp (5th 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Glomp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Anon nomination, from article talk page: I just came across this while randomly browsing internet, and appalled by this absolutely unencyclopedic material. this is senseless, i'm not going to make an account to finish nominating this but please vote to delete thanks. 218.219.212.168 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Move to Wiktionary Delete. On the face of it, given the previous AFDs for this article, this nomination seems a bit of a waste of time, but in my view this is little more than a dictionary definition, and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. It has refs, but these only really back up the fact that the term exists, and its source, and little else - what I would expect to see in Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary already has an entry for Glomp, by the way.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as dicdef and nothing more, shows little hope of expansion beyond that. It's already in Wiktionary, so don't bother transwiki-ing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination is just I don't like it. The article seems a reasonable stub with good potential for expansion.  I've seen animé fans doing this at conventions and wondered what was going on.  Now I know.  The article might be merged with Hug which needs work too but that's a keep which can be left to content-editors.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has been around since 2004, has had hundreds of revisions, and still doesn't really go beyond a dictionary definition - if there was potential for expansion, I think it would probably have happened by now. Most relevant Google hits are, unsurprisingly, also just dictionary definitions. --Michig (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's no reason to delete per WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NOEFFORT - this article has had lots of work on it and is still nowhere near an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, the only reliable source is the St. Pete Times, and that's just a passing mention. None of the other sources is reliable, and there's already a Wiktionary entry so there's no need to move it over there.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Chuck (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I submit the equally paltry entry of the Shocker (hand gesture). The Shocker is an equal neologism and subcultural gesture, yet it warrants a wikipedia entry which consists of a highly similar structure and writing as the glomp article. Yet, there is no move for deletion of that entry, and especially not multiple AfDs for it. And, yes, you may comment that the "shocker" gesture has merit in the argument of censorship and particularly that of yearbook censorship, as well as senior pranks, but the incident wasn't even mentioned. If anything, merge with Otaku to perhaps discuss subcultural phenomena, but don't overall delete without calling into question other articles on subcultural and NEO gestures. --That Fish Chick (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Chuck (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was merely pointing out that there are other equal neologisms with dicdefs as articles that have not ever been called into question as evidence to the fact that this is just a return nomination because I don't like it. I had suggested within the vote commentary to merge it with Otaku (although, admittedly, in retrospect, it would make a better subnote to Hug).--That Fish Chick (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that other articles on similar phenomenon exist is not reason to keep this one; if you think Shocker (hand gesture) is a non-notable neologism, go ahead and put it up for deletion, too. It won't affect the outcome of this AfD, though. As far as my opinion, without anything sourced regarding the meaning or significance associated with the act of glomping, this is doomed to remain nothing but a simple definition, and thus should remain in Wiktionary. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and soft redirect to Wiktionary. JuJube (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rewritten the lede to start turning the article into a description of the activity rather than being a dictionary-style discussion of the word's etymology. It seems clear that this is a notable activity and I have added another citation to demonstrate this.  None of this activity took long and so the article's failings are more a matter of neglect than the impossibility of improvement.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still no reliable sources. Some of the sources that are provided don't even use the word.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The exact word isn't important since this article is not supposed to be a dictionary definition. The topic is the stylized hugging which frequently occurs in an animé context and the source I added addresses this.  Please see The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles which explains the distinction.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly claim that an article which doesn't even mention the word can be used as evidence of the existence of the word? And you haven't addressed the reliability of the sources.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, as I have explained, the article is about the activity not the word. For further explanation of the difference between a word and what it represents, please see Use–mention distinction.  And the Stars and Stripes seems to be a highly reliable source. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the activity... you mean hugging? We got that article already. Hugging people at an anime convention and using a special word for it doesn't really warrant its own article. tgies (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Stars and Stripes article just says that people hold signs up saying "Free Hugs" - it's a very weak reference. It doesn't mention "Glomp" and doesn't mention the activity of "glomping" at all.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and, even if it did mention the word, the word is still a protologism. tgies (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * lmao. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. Delete plzkthx. I spent some time trying to clean up this article to make it a bit more tolerable. But here is yet another AfD. This article is exactly the pointless shit nobody needs. Also, nobody spells anime "animé", what? Colonel Warden: notable or not, the word "glomp" is indubitably a neologism, and I think it's prudent to admit a treatment of the subject matter pursuant to this fact. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef. Wikipedia does not need an article specifically for what amounts to little more than an Internet slang term for "hug". An incorrigibly trivial article without encyclopedic merit or distinction. tgies (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Possibly redirect to Hug. This is in keeping with the present de facto standard of creating redirects for specialized terms and leaving it to Wiktionary to put those terms in their etymological and/or cultural context. tgies (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect a supposed word for which we can find no evidence that it even exists.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, can possibly be moved to wiktionary, the only real deletion discussion for this article was the first one, others were kept because of "keepers" arguing something along the line of "Was nominated and was kept so it's notable". I suggest a move to wiktionary and some mention made of it on the Anime article or some other one.--The Dominator (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already at Wiktionary, though if I were active there I'd probably move to have it removed for failure to provide evidence that the word exists.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, very obscure word, pretty much proves that it doesn't warrant its own encyclopedia article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NEO. The article actually states the word is a neologism. Jay32183 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because flamingspinach keeps editing the article against my improvements. We could move the article to something like Animé tacklehug but that would then violate normal naming standards which say that an article should have the name which is most likely to be used. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * flamingspinach did not particularly change the article in the revision you are speaking of. You had it as "seems to be a neologism" and flamingspinach changed it to simply state that it is a neologism. This is not a major change or a particularly disputable one. Either way, the fact remains that it is a neologism, regardless of who's calling it that and how sure they are about it. tgies (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Transwiki' it. --Gwern (contribs) 22:44 10 February 2008 (GMT)
 * Where to? There's already a Wiktionary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgies (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What is all this "There already is a Wiktionary entry" crap? Nobody said there wasn't, we're saying that it should stay there and be deleted from here, that's why we vote delete.--The Dominator (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading carefully, you'll note that the only people saying "there already is a Wiktionary entry" are saying this in response to people arguing that Glomp should be transwiki moved. tgies (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep. The inclusion of the word in such sources as Aaron Peckham, Urban Dictionary (Andrews McMeel, 2005. ISBN 0740751433), show that while it may be a neologism, it does not meet the strictures given at WP:NEO (the only sense that need concern us here). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Being basically a work of humor, the Urban Dictionary compilations do not necessarily reflect the general usage at all -- many entries have been chosen for their unusual or humorous nature. In addition, this does not change the fact that the article is essentially an attempt to dress up a dictionary entry with unverifiable claptrap about how it means something special to people who watch a lot of anime. tgies (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the St. Petersburg Times not a reliable source? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the entirety of what the SPT article has to say about "glomp:" "Hogan, who lives in Tampa and works at Home Shopping Network, seems to know nearly everyone here in Miami Beach. She greets many of them with a 'glomp' - an Anime word for big hug." In short, it's a reliable source that the term exists, and a reliable source of a very brief definition of the term.  Nothing more.  It's a reliable source for the Wiktionary entry.  I don't see that the SPT article says anything encyclopedic about glomping.
 * Note also WP:NEO: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." The SPT article uses the term, but I don't see that it could be said to be about the term. Chuck (talk) 23:57, 12 February 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.