Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy (2nd 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, discounting WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL votes, which is basiclly all the keep votes. Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

List of neologisms on Family Guy (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

None of these terms are actually neologisms or even protologisms. As far as I know, Family Guy has not spawned any actual neologisms. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and specifically, it's not a collection of quotes, which is what this is (or, even worse, non-quotes that attempt to recreate humor and fail.) Only one item is sourced, and its source doesn't assign any importance to the term, nor does it establish that the term is used in the general population, but rather is used by the Family Guy writers. In fact, the only term in the list that's even used in more than one episode is "giggity", but reducing a list to a single item is stupid, and in any case that's not a neologism. 1st nom. Delete. Mango juice talk 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Joie de Vivre 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A word made up on a single occasion as an attempt at humour is not a neologism, it is a construct. This list is wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete these are not neologisms, at the very least the page is misnamed. Neitherday 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Barely less than a year has passed and Family Guy is still popular and its neologisms are still working its way into pop culture, slowly but surely. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. Once they are established, and this can be proven with reliable, independent sources, we'll talk. Mango juice talk 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Except for "giggity" (shold be in an article about Quagmire), I've never heard these used outside of the show. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much per nom. Given that they're not neologisms, they're unsourced and the article is a crystal ball at best, I'm honestly surprised that this ended up with No Consensus last time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial and non-notable, as I've seen every episode and even I don't remember most of these. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You must be hanging out with a pretty old crowd if you don't remember these outside of the show. Ooh, snap, I went there! Augurr 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the citations for their widespread use outside the show are where? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This page, along with certain articles on hip-hop topics, proved very useful to me the last time I volunteered to monitor my grandchildren's IMs. PrimeFan 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That something is useful isn't an argument to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per PrimeFan's argument multiplied by the argument that the article and its talk page are quite enlightening. CompositeFan 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If by englightening you mean, full of unverified stuff that makes us remember funny Family Guy episodes. And, as BigHaz says, "It's useful" is a bad kind of keep argument: lots of useful information doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  I sincerely hope the admin closing this pays attention to how weak these keep arguments are: no one has addressed any of my concerns in the nomination.  Mango juice talk 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Joie de Vivre 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Joie de Vivre had already stated his/her vote on 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC). 141.217.41.212 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I forgot that I had voted already, and I didn't see it in the list because it was at the very top and formatted incorrectly (indented too far).  Sorry about that, it was totally an accident.  Joie de Vivre 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep "Clemen," "dipsoluscious," "fastizio," "gatilsday," "giggity," "hic-a-doo-la," perhaps "sideboob," certainly "slappywag" and "tumorsyphilisitisosis" are all Family Guy neologisms, deserving of listing just as much as Simpsons neologisms. Even if it turns out that none of these were coined by Family Guy writers, Family Guy remains an important means of transmission and take-up for these terms and the show gets credit for them. Each item is sourced to the episode in which it appears, and prior to this second nomination, the article has had three other sources (not just "one" as the nom claims). The second source, alphabetically, [Delarte, 2005], which is mainly concerned with nitpicking Family Guy continuity, apparently finds "hic-a-doo-la" important enough to list as a "dictionary" entry (misspelled on page 29 with an extra H at the end, a correction was issued in August 2006!). [Callaghan, 2005] does indeed establish that "slappywag" is used by staff writers, not the general population. But if we limit ourselves to the main target demographic through the filter of myspace.com, Google searching gets the following number of results:

clemen 1030

dipsoluscious 4

fastizio 209

gatilsday 0

giggity 72300

hic-a-doo-la 175

sideboob 1210

slappywag 303

tumorsyphilisitisosis 4


 * I'm of course surprised by the lack of results for gatilsday, but even just four results for the hard-to-spell "tumorsyphilisitisosis" confirms that the general population will make an effort to take up Family Guy neologisms. In conclusion, I think it's a vulky idea to delete this article. ShutterBugTrekker 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Frank Grimes will deflate each one of my arguments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
 * will make an effort? Is this from your crystal ball? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Search hits alone can't make for sources.. but even if we're estimating prominence here, 1210 isn't going to be very convincing. Mango juice talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your right, 1210 isn't impressive. but what happens when you take off the "site:myspace.com" searchfilter for "sideboob"? it goes up to "about 16,600" Numerao 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice! The first result is sideboob.org. Then there's a page of Lindsey Lohan sideboob pictures (blacklisted hyperlink) with Peter Griffin strategically placed to cover her nipple, and a sound clip of him saying "Look at that sideboob!" Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of these neologisms have already made (past tense) their way into the popular lexicon. The crystal ball would be whether they disappear completely, stay the same or increase in presence in the future. Robert Happelberg 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't. Obviously we have some Family Guy fans here.  *You* may be aware of these terms, but arguments like "these have made their way into the popular lexicon" are, frankly, completely made-up.  Show us some actual proof.  Mango juice talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Having done a quick Google search the terms all appear notable, notable television series. Requires some more references as well, however. Matthew
 * I disagree. What Google tells me is that there are a number of Family Guy fans out there, which is hardly revolutionary information. The fact that they call their MySpace profile "fastizio" (for example) does not notability make. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per not paper and notability. I added a ref.  Apparently family guy is big business in ring tones, so some of this is in the news. - Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the significance of the reference is. So one particular phrase is a popular ringtone, what does that prove in terms of the notability of this list of pseudo-neologisms? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It speaks to notability. The more independant sources, the more notable.  No more, no less. - Peregrine Fisher 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It speaks to the notability of one phrase being used as a ringtone, not the notability of that phrase (or any other) being a neologism with a life outside of the show. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "It speaks to the notability of one phrase being used as a ringtone." Yes.  "Not the notability of that phrase."  The phrase = the ringtone.  "(or any other)." I'm not talking about any other phrase.  "Being a neologism with a life outside of the show." If it isn't a family guy neologism, delete it, the ringtone and the article are definitely outside the show. - Peregrine Fisher 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that people have Quagmire saying "giggity" on their phone doesn't make the phrase a neologism. It makes the phrase a popular thing to have on your phone as a ringtone. A friend of mine has "Oh my God, they killed Kenny. You Bastard!" as a ringtone, but that doesn't make the phrase a neologism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not a neologism, remove it. This page should only contain neologisms.  I'm not saying its use as a ringtone makes it a neologism, I'm saying it makes it notable. - Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps a renaming per parallel to older iconoclastic shows might be in order. Anton Mravcek 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Insert here whatever argument in favor the opposition would like to discredit in a few minutes after this posting. Anton Mravcek 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the excellent and intriguing points made by Robert Happelberg. Smee 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You mean the discredited ones? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unattributable fan-OR in action, apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep based on numerical evidence alone. Numerao 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The only one that would have a case is giggety. TJ Spyke 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nom. The only term used generally outside of Family Guy is "giggity-giggity-giggity".  Produce some sources to back up the claims that the other terms are used frequently and I'll change my vote. JuJube 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with the nominator. &mdash; Michael Linnear   00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No point folding them back into the article and the shows themselves are the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument for inclusion.  --Haemo 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - none of these have WP:RS asserting notability, and no compelling arguments have been made for keeping them. --Haemo 01:14, 21 March 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.