Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meh (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Meh Articles for deletion/Meh (slang) Articles for deletion/Meh/old Articles for deletion/Meh (2nd nomination)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This has already failed four three AFDs in the past. I believe this is worthy of WP:CSD, but I'm going to give the most recent creator the benefit of the doubt and bring it here instead. Dweller makes the point that this is WP:V, and I agree that it is. It is well written, referenced, and interesting. But, it's still a dictdecf, and dictdefs belong in wictionary, where an entry already exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Since the last AFD-Meh(slang) in 2005, the press has published 67 articles in 2006, 90 in 2007 , and 60 in 2008  for a total of 217 articles from 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources concerning this term.  Some may say Meh, but I believe the term has evolved to more than a dictionary entry and has established its Notability well within our standards for inclusion at Wikipedia.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – First off, there is no way that this could be a CSD G4, because the current version is completely different than any previous deleted version. The current article begins with a dicdef, appropriately, but the subsequent section on "Controversy" is encyclopedic (not dictionary) material, and of demonstrated WP:N notability since it has multiple non-trivial references. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Controversies related to the word meh" but I would recommend keeping it simple. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- as stated above, sure the beginning is a dic-def, but after that, the article actually has viable encyclopedic content based on reliable sources. I'd say its transcended being a word that suitable for just a dictionary, and has become an valid topic for an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (article creator, and practically the only contributor) Speedy totally inappropriate as that policy specifically excludes examples like this. As far as AfD goes, I recreated the article carefully because I was able to find and include multiple non trivial references in RS. This allows me to argue strongly that it's a notable term and I strongly disagree that the article is "a dicdef". 90% of this article would not be found in any dictionary, not even wiktionary. No doubt over time, the non dicdef elements will grow beyond the controversy sections I've so far listed, but even they are enough to warrant its inclusion according to our deletion policy. --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a dictionary definition, with a few closely related stories cited about controversy over it being included in a dictionary. That in fact shows that it is a very questionable dic-def. Examples of people using it in an article are not convincing as to the need to have an encyclopedia article about it. Especially unconvincing are mere searches showing the three letters appearing in print, without it being the dicdef meaning (" jume (pronounced JEW-meh)," in the first cite from 2006, or "meh" as pronunciation of an Arabic phoneme in another cited article from 2006.Edison (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per reason given by Shoessss. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is more than a dictionary definition and is topical having recently had a half page article about in The Times. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, seems to be enough there. Keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a slang usage guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled to the point of bemusement by that opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for anything that is notable, whether that is a politician, animal, historical event or, yes, slang expression. In fact, we have an entire Category (Category:Slang) devoted to slang, with 17 subcategories. So clearly, your objection is not because it's merely slang, but you think it's a "usage guide". But even at a quick glance, the article is demonstrably not a "usage guide". I can therefore only assume you've read an old version of the page, perhaps from your computer's cache, rather than the article that currently exists. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not a repository for everything which has been noticed. Please see our policy which clearly covers this material when it says Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide..  The place for such material is Wiktionary which already has an article on this.  We don't need one too. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "repository for everything which has been noticed": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable things. According to our definition of notability this is notable. It passes WP:V easily.
 * dicdef: What percentage of this article do you consider to be a dictionary definition that would be appropriately placed at wiktionary? All our articles should include a definition. Do you mean to suggest that all our articles should be deleted? I'm amazed you cite WP:NOTDICDEF as it makes my point, not your's:

Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible.
 * ...which has been done. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the main policy article which explains in exhaustive detail the difference between articles about words (which belong in dictionaries) and articles about topics (which is what we do). This article fails that policy.  Note also that the proper topic here - casual indifference - is better covered under other titles such as apathy and boredom. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * this is more than a word and a redirect to apathy or boredom misses the point. Meh is not just a dicdef, but has elements as a social meme, as a topic of controversy and as a notable neologism. If the article discussed just the word's usage, it would fall into the the policy you cite. But it does not. Much like, for example, the articles on apathy and boredom, to pick two examples. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The news media routinely discuss words - their origin, meaning, pronunciation, addition to dictionaries and so forth. There are even entire productions devoted to this such as Call My Bluff, Hot For Words and so on.  Such lexicography is insufficient to qualify words for inclusion here since many/most unusual words would qualify and we would turn the place into a dictionary, which is contrary to policy, as discussed.  The additional policy which disqualifies such routine news coverage from inclusion here is WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There's now enough sources. When the information about a word and its uses is extensive, then its suitable for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic information about a word and how it is used is sufficient warrant for an article here, as long as its more than basic dictionary definition+etymology+illustrative quotation. I think an encyclopedic article could be written for most common words--a dictionary is a summary of it in directory fashion. DGG (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our policy WP:NAD explains in some detail that the length of an entry is not significant. Major dictionaries such as the OED have enormous entries for common words, detailing their etymology, history and usage.  This policy explains that the key issue is whether the article is about a word or about a topic .  Wiktionary does words while we do topics.  Is this not clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with the whole "word vs. topic" test. There's too fine a line between a "word" and a "topic". I think an encyclopedia is in many ways a dictionary with expanded information. I'd say most of our "topics" are merely words, with lengthy definitions, etymologies, histories of use, etc. Would you advocate the deletion of shit too? I don't see much difference there, except purely in length; the type of information contained within is identical. We have way too many articles based on the mere history of words as a function of language to say that those don't make valid encyclopedia articles.  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 6 Dec 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the article consisted of a mere definition, th argument to delete would have some merit. This article consists of much more. The history and controversy makes it a valid encyclopedia entry.  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:30, 5 Dec 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A single definition is not a dicdef.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because deletionism is stupid and counterproductive..- (User) Criffer (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:00, 7 December 2008 (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.