Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incluing


 * 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   merge to Exposition (literary technique). after merger of only relevant information, please leave incluing as a redirect Nja 247 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incluing

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

Apparently a neologism, but I can't find evidence of wide use. Google Scholar and News searches turn up nothing but misspellings of "including". Only references currently are a newsgroup faq, and the livejournal of the (admittedly notable) author who coined it. Quote: "This is totally a word I made up when I was fifteen".

If reliable sources can be found, there could possibly be something on the concept to salvage into Exposition (literary technique), but I very much doubt it. the wub "?!"  21:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a useful word, and I wish it well, but I can't find evidence that it is in wide enough use to satisfy WP:NEO and (I regret) it isn't Wikipedia's business to help publicise it. I would support a mention in Exposition (literary technique), but I don't think it's ready for its own article. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I found a single source: however, it mentions the word in a quote of Jo Walton, taken off her blog.  I can't find any evidence that the word has achieved any other notable use.  Cazort (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. The term is widely used in litcriticsm, especially in science fiction circles and the failure of the editor putting this up for deletion to find examples should not be reason to delete an article that has been up and maintained for some five years now. Wikipedia is made to have articles on relatively obscure concepts and this article doesn't need to be deleted or included into something else, it just needs to be left alone. Here's a better Google search showing use of incluing btw. --Martin Wisse (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any sources that are not self-published (i.e. blogs, forums, personal pages?). Per WP:N, self-published sources are not to be used to establish notability...the sources must be reliable and independent of the subject.  E.g. an article in a literary magazine, a book published by a reputable publisher, a peer-reviewed journal.  I did a thorough google search and found nothing but self-published sources.  Cazort (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * merge into Exposition (literary technique). While the term "incluing" is an abomination, the thing referred to is important, and should be discussed in encyclopedic terms in the main article on the subject. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into Exposition (literary technique) leaving Incluing as a redirect. It doesn't justify a separate article but I agree it should be discussed in the main article. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Could be mentioned at Exposition (literary technique), but not really worth a full-blown merge. Eusebeus (talk) 15:05, 26 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.