Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaloogian


 * 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 of the debate was deleted as neologism - we don't take words as they develop, only after they've finished developing. DS 15:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kaloogian

 * KEEP Preserve it, will live on similiar to a spoonerism

Why delete it? I vote to preserve.
 * neologism makes it original research Xander76 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted because it's not a word that is being used widely (or even narrowly) with that definition. According to the page on deletion, neologisms are candidates for deletion because they constitute original research, and the fact that there are no citations in the article arguably breaks verifiability. The incident with the photo that this definition refers to was publicized within the last 48 hours; I would argue that this article is an attempt to create a new word. That seems like reason enough to delete to me. I am, however, very new to this process, so please forgive me if I am mistaken/stepping on toes. Xander76 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No reason to delete. IT's a new word, but certainly could enter the lexicon. yawanur

If wikipedia is to be the encyclopedia for the new century, it has to accommodate innovative and catchy slang as it is developing. We should keep the word. And honestly, since the congressman is a lying shmuck, who cares?

Personally, I don't see this word catching on, but whatever. Maybe include a NPOV note up top, but it's a bit early to delete it. - HG

Agreed -AS

There are a lot of words that could enter the lexicon and haven't. I could make up a few right now. Until it does enter the lexicon, though, why should Wikipedia cover it? Doesn't that amount to suggesting new words and conducting original research? Xander76 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it -CBH

I agree that there should be an NPOV note--but this is clearly not original research. Blogs are already using this term, and a friend of mine referred to something as 'Kaloogian' today as well. Let's keep it.
 * Interesting; I would have thought this would be a pretty obvious delete, but as I say, I'm super new to this. Can anyone who wants to keep it explain to me why they think the article is not original research?  The guidelines for deletion indicate that "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)" is a valid reason for deletion.  Thanks. Xander76 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, the only example of this usage I could find was in a blog referring to the Wikipedia entry, which raises the odd possibility that the Wikipedia article might actually create the word and thereby justify its entry in Wikipedia. Makes my head spin.  An NPOV note might be a good route (especially given that the example sentence seems to me a little snide), but if the word is in use, there should also be some citations, yes?  Xander76 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and you would have though right Derex 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete: per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a slang and/or idiom guide. Also, if blogs are being considered as a valid source, its time to review WP:VERIFIABILITY again. --Hetar 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the slang/idiom debate for a bit, it's being used on blogs is kind of irrelevant. That has nothing to do with verifiability. The definite article is also used frequently on blogs, as is the past tense of verbs, and their credibility is not in question.

There are two problems I see right now: one, if it does exist around the blogs, it's unsourced. Two, how is this not a dictionary page? Why Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Notapipe 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it.--Dickius 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition appears OK. This incident has been reported by the AP, not just by blogs. The word may or may catch on, but there is no reason to delete it. -JAR

I say preserve. Preserve with extreme prejudice. - WRD

This is not a discussion about whether the incident itself should be included in Wikipedia. It in fact already is in the article for Howard Kaloogian. The question is whether an article about the very new slang term "Kaloogian" merits an article. I say no, for 3 reasons: (1) As Hetar says above, WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and entries that just define a word do not belong. WP:NOT also specifically says articles defining slang terms are not appropriate. (2) There is no sourcing in the article, and WP:VERIFIABILITY says that sourcing is considered to be the burden of those who include an entry in Wikipedia. (3) The article feels NPOV to me, especially given that the example sentence has a partisan tinge. Any of those reasons seem to me reason enough to delete. All that being said, if the word actually becomes widely used in the blogosphere, and we have good sources for that usage, I could agree that it might merit a sentence in the Baghdad Photo Incident section of Howard Kaloogian. Xander76 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I am personally politically aligned with the left, and thus hope this word catches on and takes root. However, I support deleting this page, for the following reasons: 1) it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. 2) it is a clear violation of the "neologisms" section of the Deletion Policy 3) the only arguments for keeping it are partisan.

If the word catches on and gets citable use, then this entry can be re-created in Wiktionary with appropriate references. But as it is, I'm not willing to tolerate left-wing political slander just because it aligns with my personal prejudices, just as I don't oppose right-wing political slander just because it conflicts with them. - Meowse

Delete. This bozo was at 7% in the polls and was not a serious contender to become his party frontrunner even before this particular episode. I disagree with the argument over blogs: TPM, Kos and Atrios all have much larger circulations than most regional newspapers. Medium should not be grounds for disqualification, notability of the source should. If this became an established term even if only on the left there would be an argument to be made. As it is the subject matter is simply not botable. This pipsqueak is not worthy of the contempt. -- Gorgonzilla 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit it. The closest equivalent term I can find to this is Santorum which is in Wikipedia on the page for Savage_Love. I think the content needs to be changed, but not removed all together. Wiktionary would be the appropriate place for a definition, but the background of how the word came to be would seem appropriate here. - sterno74
 * Delete as nn backdoor attack on the guy. If the term gains traction in the long term as Santorum has, we can revisit it at that point. --Sneftel 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I have created an entry Eponymous_political_slanders which describes the new trend of attacking a politician's reputation by defining their name as referring to a negative or unpleasant topic. It addresses the commonalities between "kaloogian" and "santorum". However, I still support the deletion of this article for the reasons I mentioned above. -- Meowse
 * Uhhh, I think Eponymous political slanders needs to be AfD'd, no disrespect intended.  The examples (even the "successful" ones) are not all that citeable, and Wikipedia shouldn't be repeating slanders.  Phr 08:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete and if you sock puppets want to put in your two cents, you should learn how to vote properly. Stev0 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unquestionable delete this whole Kaloogian thing took place this week, and it's covered in his article. This is absolutely absurd; it is not a word in wide-spread use. This article is posted on a very well-known blog, which is where all the anon's are likely coming from. Derex 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete If it wasn't clear from what I've written above (and the fact that I proposed the article for deletion), I am in favor of deletion. Apologies for not being totally clear on the official voting procedure; this is the first thing I've done on Wikipedia as a registered user. (edited to reflect the fact that I am was mistaken in calling myself a sock puppet; an idiot for not understanding the term, maybe, but a sock puppet, no.) Xander76 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If the word comes into common usage, or even becomes persistent internet slang, then it might be appropriate to give it a definition. But it's been less than a week since it was coined, and odds are the guy'll be forgotten in another week. Evan 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This word MIGHT eventually enter common usage, in which case it MIGHT be eligible. But the word has not entered common usage at this time, so it is not acceptable.

Delete as unverifiable, unless, prior to the end of the AfD comment period, someone provides a good, verifiable source citation, from some source that isn't in Kaloogian's neighborhood, that shows that the term is in reasonably widespread use. And the source should not be the coiner of the term, because it is important to show that the word is being adopted. At the moment, as I write this, the article contains no source citations whatsoever and thus completely fails the verifiability policy which is linked at the bottom of every edit box. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Another neologism that nobody actually uses. Fan1967 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete - clearly this neologism is too young and does not pass the common usage test - Maximusveritas 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents- preserve it. The methods and degrees of lies/subreptions we're seeing from the Republican Party with regards to the Iraq War are nearly unprecedented in human history, so of course there are few words to adequately describe them. I believe this term should be retained. It seems clear that it will be widely accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.41.89 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, NeoCruft. Long way to go...  Dei zio  01:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We went through something similar with Articles for deletion/Schmidthead. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Words Someone Made Up Just Now. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete as neologism. bikeable (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it is clear that it is widely accepted&mdash;and that acceptance can be supported by verifiable source citations&mdash;then we can and should have an article on it. Not before. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn nonsense neologism.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per BlnguyenMontco 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Howard Kaloogian, which already mentions the photo incident. Phr 03:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's been cited by Josh Marshall at TPM - if it was the other way round it might count for something... Guettarda 03:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bloody funny though. --jacobolus (t) 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'd say shunt it to BJAODN - but I wouldn't mind its being left up until after the April 11 election for yucks. Major Danby 04:46 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism Nothings 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - On the grounds that it belongs more in Wiktionary than Wikpedia.
 * Delete as a neologism and a dictionary definition. Fishhead64 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the kind of "benign vandalism" that makes Wikipedia look bad. --Dhartung | Talk 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn-neologism and dicdef. Too many newbiepuppets ;-) Grand  master  ka  09:55, 31 March 2006 (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.