Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbaret


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lesbaret

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism. Google search found no hits other than Wikipedia for this word used this way, and given that the article creator says that it was coined this week, I think it's fair to say this fails to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards. PROD tag was removed without explanation or improvement to article, so here we are at AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Failure to appear in Google search does not denote "not-notable," especially when it comes to new LGBT developments. A search for "lesbian bars in Chicago," for example, fails to turn up Parlour, which is otherwise well known by word of mouth for its currently thriving lesbian scene. The term "lesbaret" is recently coined, but a needed name for a recognized theatrical genre.

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the article, the term was first coined in June 2013. That would mean that it is less than one week old.  When the term has had time to circulate around, and get used by more than just one person to hawk her own entertainment program, then it may become a notable neologism.  For now, now so much.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was not created by the same person who coined the term or to sell any particular show....

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say the article was created to sell a show. I said that the term was created to sell (or at least describe) a show.  And I'll admit that I might be incorrect in that assumption -- the term may well have been invented to describe a whole genre of shows (are lesbian cabaret acts really all that different from gay cabaret acts, or straight cabaret acts?), but that is irrelevant.  The matter at hand here is whether the term lesbaret has gained sufficiently wide usage to represent a notable neologism.  And to that question, the answer appears to be a resounding "no".  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful response. While I understand the concern that failure to show up on Google suggests a non-notable term, I would point out that Google cannot effectively track word-of-mouth trends, especially in communities and genres where so much is "underground." My hope is that myself and other users will be able to fill in more details and examples to make the page more robust and verifiable.

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment True, Google cannot track word of mouth, but then word of mouth is not considered a reliable source. We need verifiable evidence that this word has gained currency as the term for a particular genre of entertainment, and that is currently lacking.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A sad day for oral histories everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.elisabeth.smith (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an oral history: it's an encyclopaedia. Please bear in mind that "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is explained in the general notability guidelines: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Without this, it's impossible to write an article that's verifiably balanced. For example, if somebody came along and said, "No! Lesbaret is cabaret produced by Lesley's Cabaret Troupe!", how would we know that your claim is stronger than theirs? Dricherby (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No WP:RS whatsoever. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no reliable sources to show that this is anything other than something someone came up with one day. We don't include neologisms on Wikipedia, not unless they're something that caught on so wildly and received such an extreme (and I mean EXTREME) amount of attention from just about every type of press there is. Even if the thing the word is describing has been around for a while, that doesn't change that the word itself is new. It's not up to Wikipedia to help popularize or spread a word around and I can't even see where this word is even being used that much. Searches don't bring up much by the way of usage. This just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete original research! It's a newly-minted neologism and there is no indication that it is in any way notable.  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. To summarize: no WP:RS (actually, no real sources at all), WP:OR, WP:NEO. Ansh666 21:45, 7 June 2013 (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.