Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morissettian irony

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Morissettian irony, later changed to Ironic (song).

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to merge the content with Ironic (song).


 * Morissettian Irony - claims "The Internet has played an integral role in coining and defining the phrase Morissettian irony" but the phrase only gets 2 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 05:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Which can easily be explained by the fact that her last name is just plain hard to spell. Try Morrisettian, or Morissetian, or any of many variations, and you'll get more results. Not to mention that Google doesn't cover everything, it doesn't even cover the UrbanDictionary.com definition of the word. Add to that the fact that Morissettian irony is mentioned in my college textbook - why not Wikipedia??
 * This is not an article, this is (rather silly) music criticism. Delete. Salsa Shark 05:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I was undecided until you brought up Urbandictionary.com, which a) contains a lot of made-up imaginary garbage, and b) is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. - Hephaestos 05:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * And variant spellings don't turn up any Google hits. Delete, or at the very most make it a minor note on the irony article. --MIRV (talk) 05:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * What you guys don't understand is that this is a genuine type of irony: In other words, because the expectation that something labelled or described as &quot;ironic&quot; is not actually met, in adherence to the definition of irony (that what is expected is not what happens), a situation that would have been non-ironic if left alone suddenly becomes ironic I may be new to this website (a great one I should add, lucky to have found it), and I certainly don't want to start anything, but I think that by focusing on this article being a music critique (it's not!), that it contains references to Internet articles (not important!) and UrbanDictionary.com (removed!), you are missing the real gist of what this article tries to explain. Hephaestos, I understand your concern, so I removed the UrbanDictionary link. That is not where I got the idea for this page, it was from my college textbook. Sorry if I made anyone mad with this, NOT my intention..
 * Delete. Seems a complete fiction to me based on reading too much into a song. Flockmeal 05:41, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to say this earlier. If there's any way you can tell me how to &lt;i&gt;improve&lt;/i&gt; this article, instead of just outright telling me to delete it, that would help a lot. I'd be glad to look up more information about this subject if that's what you guys want to see. Please, I know I'm not the only one intrigued by this linguistic phenomenon!
 * I'll assume you're being sincere... but it's looking like this phrase or concept is not in wide use. Wikipedia is not the place to try to promote new pet phrases. However there are certainly lots of other usefull things that can be added and expanded here. You might wish to take a look at Welcome, newcomers and associated pages. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anthony DiPierro 07:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is kind of frustrating me right now..I am not trying to promote a pet phrase here, and it is not the result of reading too much into &quot;Ironic&quot; either. It's something I've heard before and seen used as a pop-culture reference - &quot;it's ironic, at least of the Morissettian variety&quot;, &quot;a little bit of Morissettian irony for you&quot; - and today, even in my college literature textbook. The textbook describes it as, essentially, the concept that calling something non-ironic &quot;ironic&quot; is actually ironic in itself. I'm honestly confused why a perfectly valid and informative article people are now voting to delete. I just want you guys to understand the spirit in which this was written - to contribute valid information to the very amazing stuff you already have on &quot;irony&quot;, that's all. I promise you it's not a music criticism, or reading to much into a song at all..the song was just one example of Morissettian irony! Obviously none of you guys have encountered references to &quot;Ironic&quot;, and maybe it's just 'cause I'm an Alanis fan, but I have. If you understand that this isn't an effort to promote a phrase, or an effort to dissect a song, but just an attempt to contribute something so that readers will have a better, wider understanding of irony - and you still want to delete it, then I support your decision to delete it. But so far it seems like you guys have never heard of the phrase before, and assume it doesn't exist, and that's your justification for deleting this entry. Hopefully that's not the case..I just don't want this to be written off as something it's not. lol..I'm new, and I've already created such a mess...again, this was NOT my intention!! I'm sorry, good night everyone!!! :-)
 * Please don't be discouraged. I think it makes a nice addendum to the Irony article, and merits a few words on the Alanis Morissette page. I have no objection to it if you can cite a respectable "textbook" source. The non-irony of the lyric is a popular parlour-meme. Hardly surprising that someone should parlay it into a buzzphrase.  chocolateboy 08:10, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If anything, the term would be "Morissettian," not "Morissettian irony." It would mean "Of, pertaining to, or in the style of, Alanis Morissette or her works."  Kind of like Clintonesque would mean "Having Bill Clinton-like qualities."  And guess what.  Clintonesque is in Urban Dictionary, and Clintonesque definition gets 103 hits on google, far more than any form of "Morissettian irony".  But I don't see Clintonesque or Clintonesque definition on Wikipedia, because it shouldn't be.  And I don't care if some textbook author used the term, either.  Maybe one day "Morissettian irony" will be worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but that day has not yet come.  Anthony DiPierro 08:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * There are a number of terms including "Alanic" ;) On its own, "Morissettian" says nothing about the topic at hand: the misuse of the word "irony". Either way, "Ironic"-bashing (and defending) has become a popular Internet pastime  which has subsequently been ripped off "reinvented" by at least one standup comedian (press Ctrl-A) and a number of newspapers including The Washington Post  and The Guardian . The name might be bogus, but the phenomenon isn't. I think it would be better placed under a dedicated Ironic (song) article, though, unless the textbook in question can back up its usage with citations. chocolateboy 18:28, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it would stand a better chance of being kept if the textbook were cited (with an ISBN). - Hephaestos 08:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, with 3 total Google hits it is clear this is made up (largely as a criticism of the misuse of the word irony). Maximus Rex 20:03, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Move to something "Ironic_(song)" if it can't be established that the phrase is in common use. This is a clear, well-written article, it's more than a stub, it's not nonsense. The issues seem to be a) how common the actual phrase "Morisettian Irony" is, b) how common the concept is. Even if the exact phrase is not common, there's a justification for having a separate article, and that is to have a way of referencing a single, extended discussion from two places: from the Alanis Morissette and Irony. I think the discussion in both of those places should be cut down to a sentence or two, and the additional material there (e.g. the song lyric quotation) moved into "Morisettian Irony" or "Ironic_(song)" I think the mention in 3030 Google hits on "morissette irony" confirms that the general topic has received reasonably wide discussion.
 * If, a decade from now, nobody remembers the song, we can remove it then. On the other hand, it's possible that we may be watching a significant event in the evolution of the meaning of the word "irony," and it would be a shame not to have that documented.
 * It's not possible that we may be watching a significant event in the evolution of the meaning of the word "irony."
 * The article should better address the question whether the actual phrase "Morrisettian irony" is in common use or not. If it can't be proved that it is, then the article is really about the song "Ironic," influence of same, and debate on same. It should be moved to something like "Ironic_(song)". There are already Wikipedia articles about individual songs when they have unusual significance;  God Bless America is one example.
 * A side note: one of the frustrations I find in reading old novels is that there is no good reference source for out-of-date catchphrases, jokes, etc. For example, novels and songs of the twenties not infrequently include a line "Mother, pin a rose on me." Another one, familiar e.g. from the song "Trouble" in The Music Man is "So's your old man." Every few years I make a vague effort to find out what these phrases meant or referred to. Nobody knows. This stuff is worth documenting. Dpbsmith 21:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I just decided to "be bold" and I've "edited it mercilessly" (i.e. completely rewrote it to my own taste). If not deleted, I think it should be moved to Ironic_(song). Dpbsmith 22:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, *I* just decided to be bold, too, and went ahead and put a slightly-modified version of Dpb's edit up as "Ironic". I suppose the article under discussion must stay until this discussion comes to a conclusion, but I really believe that the controversy is over the legitimacy of the title as a known term; as a song article this is perfectly acceptable.  Jgm 23:19, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is a not a catch-all for every half-baked quasiconcept in the universe (which, I claim, is an accurate characterization of "Morissettian irony"). Doing my part to raise the editorial standards of Wikipedia, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to "raise the standards" violates wiki policy. see Wiki is not paper. Jack 04:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, if not on its own, at least merge. Jack 04:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a policy. It's not even an argument. It's just a truism. Wikipedia is not a swimming pool. Maximus Rex 04:35, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, it did draw more fire from academia than any other top 40 tune I can recall in the past years. If nothing else, it gave high school teachers a golden opportunity to discuss the concept with material the students actually gave a flying fahrfign&uuml;gen about. Moreover, if Wikipedia can host a page for the latest fly rap artist whose "classic" (sigh...) hit dates back to 2001, then it may be that Morissette actually provides some balance. Second, while I love Google to bits, I despair at allowing it to be the arbiter of what is important and what is not. No offense to Google, but suggesting that a topic is worthy because it gets a zillion hits is like suggesting that food at McDonald's is worthy because it gets a zillion customers.Denni 20:44, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)