Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internets


 * 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 between merging and keeping defaulting to Keep, very little support for deleting article, a consensus on whether a merge is appropriate should be formed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Internets

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no new sources in over a year, no sources younger than the start of Bush's second term. In short, flash-in-the-pan event. Will (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bushism. BJ Talk 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a constant influx of new sources is not a requirement for demonstrating notability. Nominator never brought up issues of notability on article's talk page before.  An impulsive and frivolous AfD. Robert K S (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bushism per Bjweeks. Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - discussions of the word "internets" may not be very frequent after 2004, but the word itself is still used. For instance, Jon Stewart used it at least once in this spirit on The Daily Show in 2006, but as I don't really know what episode it was or anything (beyond "the one with the bit about Ted Stevens and online gambling"), I can't properly source it. I currently don't really have any opinion on this article, though... the notability of slang terms like this is always difficult to judge. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:N agrees with Robert K S. Otherwise, merge to Bushism and redirect to Internet (disambiguation), which lists other meanings of the plural. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bushism Macy's123  review me 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Bushism Doc Strange (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak merge and redirect to Bushism, or just keep per the multiple reliable non-trivial published sources.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this where it is. This isn't the sort of topic that needs new sources, and I don't see how a merge to Bushism would improve that article. Gimmetrow 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources document the genesis of the new definition of the word internets. There's no reason why new sources would be needed.  It's continued usage is more than enough reason to keep the article. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, multiple non-trivial sources are present. Lankiveil (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge or Redirect to Bushism. The article content, as it stands, is almost entirely about Bush's use of the term; any non-Bush-related content is probably better off at Intarwebs or Internet itself. Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Modified my opinion following Robert K S' comments below. I don't think we should _delete_ the article, leaving "Internets" red-linked.  However, it would appear (from the cited sources in the article, at least), that this particular malapropism is only associated with Bush, and does not appear to stand on any firmer footing of notability.  It may be the case that there's no useful content from this article that should be added to Bushism, in which case a simple redirect would be the most appropriate solution. Tevildo (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's absurd to think that a merge with Bushism would do a favor to either article. Bushism already mentions "Internets" to the extent that it needs to get the idea across; contribution of additional material to that article merged in from Internets would give undue weight to one Bushism in that article.  For the sake of this AfD let's stick with the options of keep or delete.  Either the article has "lost notability" by not having kept in step with some mythical perpetual burden of re-proof with additional sources as the nominator contends, or it has shown its notability and can stay. Robert K S (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Robert says better what I tried to say above. I looked at the "Bushism" article and tried to imagine how the "Internets" content could possibly be merged. I don't see how a simple copy-paste would work, and anything else would involve a substantial editing to avoid making the Bushism article worse. Gimmetrow 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added some citations to the article that attest the term is in frequent and persistent use. Since the rationale for the nomination--that no new sources have been added for some time--has been invalidated, it's time for a speedy closure on this AfD. Robert K S (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:The original rational for the deletion of the article on bus ministries was shown to be mistaken, yet the deletion was nonetheless effected on other grounds. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article has no hope of salvation. It is well-established that official transcripts sometimes do not match actual remarks.  In this case, the transcriber could not possibly tell whether Bush said “internets” (which would be technically correct) or “Internets” (which would indeed be incorrect).  Repeated attempts to get this article to reflect the underlying ambiguity have been consistently thwarted by those who wish it to be a hit piece. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I find rather silly the idea that Bush would have or could have intentionally used an arcane term, and while I think such an idea is contraindicated by the Bush-Gore debate example, it doesn't matter what Bush's intentions were. The usage became a catch phrase, one that has been thoroughly sourced, and that's what the article is about.  There's nothing NNPOV or "hit-piece"-y about the article. Robert K S (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the term “the Internet” arose non-arbitrarily from “internet”, and there is nothing silly or particularly arbitrary in the original term, there is nothing “silly” in the thought that Bush would infer the original term and notion from hearing /ˈɪntɚˌnɛt/. If the article did not insist that Bush said “Internets” (rather than “internets”), then it would not be a hit piece; but that insistence has been maintained in spite of repeated attempts to instead have the article describe the origin in terms of verifiable fact (including reports of surmise identified as surmise). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to make a lot of sense of the above. Regardless of whether Bush said the obtusely comical "Internets" or the abstrusely technical "internets", he used a term that is either original or uncommon, which is what lent it catch phrase cachet.  The catch phrase is now in constant and common use, and its rise to such use is documented in the article, first with the Internet and news media reaction, then with the SNL parody, then with the viral repetition of the clip, followed finally by its use as a blog tag across the Web.  If someone wants to know where the term came from, this article answers the question, with verifiable sources, in an encyclopedic tone, and from a neutral point of view.  Given all this, it's difficult to see grounds for the article's deletion. Robert K S (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As already stated: The article has no hope of being written in an appropriately scholarly manner rather than as hit piece. Not because no one could write a scholarly article, but because Wikipedia is demonstrably unable to hold in check those who will rewrite it into a hit piece every time that it is made scholarly.  It is intellectually easy to see that we cannot know whether Bush said “Internets” or “internets”, so if anyone finds it hard to see/admit the point, we should look to an explanation other than intellectual challenge.  Likewise, it is intellectually easy to understand my claim that the history of the article shows it being kept corrupt. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This business about "holding people in check" isn't supported by the article's edit history. It has been stable for many months.  As above, the point isn't whether Bush said "Internets" or "internets"--the point is that his usage of a term became a catch phrase.  If the article were "corrupt" you might have been able to get a single other editor to agree with the basis for your complaint, but that seems not to have happened. Robert K S (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At one time, there were multiple editors contesting the claim of that article. It's stable because the non-POV-pushers gave up on it; “stable” and “scholarly” aren't the same thing.  And the point shouldn't be whether Bush did or did not really say “Internets” rather than “internets”, but the claim that he did has proved irresistable for a faction of POV-pushers, who have driven away everyone else.  The article is hopeless. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find some language that appeared to be judgmental about whether Bush was making an error or not. I removed it in a single edit in order to address your concerns.   As to whether the article should use the capitalized version of the word, would you consent to allow the version used in the official transcripts of the debates, in which the word is capitalized, with a footnote of explanation explaining that such is the case? Robert K S (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any real issue over whether it was an apparent gaffe; it was certainly an apparent gaffe, regardless of whether it were a genuine gaffe. The issue is over whether it is evident that he said “Internets” rather than “internets”.  A scholarly article could say that he say one or ther other, with the common presumption being that he said the former.  Again, we know that official transcripts are not always accurate, and the transcriber in this case had no way of distinguishing which was said.  The body of the article could legitimately say something such as “Bush used the word ‘Internets’ or ‘internets’” (with the footnote).  But the problems is that it used to note the ambiguity (and to explain that Bush's expression might not have been as ignorant as it seemed), and then POV-pushers rewrote it to make it seem certain that he'd said “Internets”.  There's little reason to expect that that sad history won't repeat itself. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really all discussion better suited to the talk page, but I don't think the article needs to go into the whole debate about which usage Bush was using. It's enough to say that he used an uncommon pluralization, and to note that the transcript capitalizes it.  To go into a whole explanation--"he may have said this, he may have said that"--that would be original research.  Anyway, the point being, the article isn't "hopeless" and as it stands now, there can be no legitimate complaint that it espouses one POV or another. Robert K S (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it should go into a “whole debate”, if it baldly claims that he said one when actually he may have said the other, then it's pushing a POV; and avoiding a “whole debate” is certainly no excuse for POV-pushing. Again, the fact that editors have successfully refused to keep it NPOV shows that Wikipedia is better-off without it. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a statement in the article you find unfactual? Robert K S (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sentences which say “Bush used the word ‘Internets’” treat the surmise that he said “Internets” (rather than “internets”) as if it is a brute fact. It would be trivial to avoid such treatment (as by inserting “or ‘internets’” in those sentences), and various versions have done just that, only to be quickly editted back to POV-pushing.  Time to cast the Precioussssss into Mt Doom. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hyperbolic comparisons of this article to dearly-held evil artifacts aside, I think you're pulling at straws here. Bush said a word pronounced "Internets" whether that's rendered with a capital letter or not.  The article must render it one way or another: to render it both ways, without the elaborate explanation of the semantic difference between the two up front, would only be confusing to the new reader; moreover, unless such a semantic argument could be attributed, it would constitute original research.  Such an explanation appearing in the lead would furthermore place undue weight on a controversy insignificant to the article topic.  (The article is about the catch phrase and its history, and not primarily about Bush or politics.)  An especially bad way of resolving this would be including an in-text modification of quoted material.  The transcript rendered the word capitalized, so it would seem th natural choice to do so in the article as well.  If you can improve the footnote I provided so that it would satisfy your compunction, you are welcome to do so, but there's simply no basis for deletion in any of what you've put forth. Robert K S (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is calling for lengthy explanations nor for the incorporation of original research; I called for a few simple changes, clearly described. (Back when I was still trying to save that article, every simple correction that I made was reverted by POV-pushers; I'm done with trying.) You keep trying to excuse what amounts to POV-pushing as-if it is an acceptable cost of simplification, when the degree of simplification accomplished is negligible. That illustrates my initial point here: The article is foredoomed to be maintained as a hit piece, and therefore is best deleted. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You go on lamenting the article's "foredoomed" status, and I'll go on trying to find reasonable ways to appease your only partially valid scruples. You're not talking to a POV-pusher now.  You're talking to somebody who wants a good article, one that necessarily also excludes the OR semantic argument you haven't been able to source. Robert K S (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The unsourceable claim here is yours: that Bush said “Internets” rather than “internets”; that cannot be genuinely sourced, because no one hear the difference, and Bush wasn't reading from a prepared remarks (which surely would not have had “Internets” anyway). The article should instead indicate that he said one of the two, and that he was widely presumed to have said the former.  You struggle here and elsewhere to have the article go beyond the available facts.  Perhaps you can explain how this is not pushing a POV.  The article is just never going to be right, because of such commitments. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not POV whether he said "Internets" or "internets" because it doesn't matter how you capitalize it--it was an uncommon pluralization, it spawned a catch phrase, and that's the article's about. At present the article makes no judgment about whether what Bush said was "stupid" or "smart", and to give undue weight to an unsourced OR explanation about the semantic difference would imply such a judgment.  This argument is a bit like one that argues which gender pronoun should be used to describe God in an article about Abrahamic faiths.  No matter which gender is decided to be used, it doesn't give champions of the other gender (or both genders, or inclusion of some explanation about the differences between them) grounds for article deletion. Robert K S (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It plainly does matter — you've already admitted that in the one case Bush were comically obtuse, while in the other he were merely using an abstruse term. And your commitment to the one rather than to the other demonstrates that it matters to you.  If the article should further explain the distinction, it is easy to find a source (Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum or TCP-IP Digest v 1 #10, for examples).  And if Wikipedia found that it could not keep articles on Abrahamic faiths from being hit pieces then it would probably walk away from them, as it ought to walk away from this article. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we use one over the other, it's because that's the version that's sourceable. If we use both versions, we have to explain why, what the difference is, why it matters... in short, repeat the talk page and this thread in the article, placing undue weight on a controversy that is unsourceable and irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is the term's history and usage as a catch phrase.  I think we've both said as much as we're going to on this, so I'll bow out now. Robert K S (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As repeatedly previously explained, the ‘I’ version is not sourceable. What the official transcript sources is no more than that the transcriber guessed an ‘I’ (rather than an ‘i’) from Bush's /ɪ/.  Again, you want to go beyond the available facts, to present Bush as acting comically obtuse, claiming that presenting surmise as plain fact is justified because it simplifies the article.  If, for whatever reason, it isn't practical to keep the article perfectly honest, then it should be deleted. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit history on the article does not reflect your characterization. I have tried to satisfy you without making the article convoluted with a irrelevant controversy, but you won't work toward compromise, insisting instead on an unwarranted deletion. Robert K S (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Great: You want to have your cake departure and eat it persist too.) Here and before, I suggested very simple changes that would keep the article perfectly honest. Your refernces to convolution and what-not are a red herring.  Every one of your ostensible compromises amounts to maintaining the unsubstantiatable claim that Bush actually said “Internets” (rather than “internets”).  Your commitment illustrates how the article cannot be rescued. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bushism and redirect. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (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.