Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oprahization


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oprahization

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The term Oprahization is clearly a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: True, it is a neologism, but it's also a concept which has been the subject of serious academic research. While some of the sources merely indicate that the term finds use, Hill and Zillman 1999 is a bona fide research paper on the topic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary (which will entail creating the relevant Wiktionary article, but that shouldn't be a problem because this neologism is attested in the references).— S Marshall T/C 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as original essay about a Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Notability. I clicked on the news and book links above and found lots of references to Oprahization in reliable sources. Most of the news links were pay-per-view, but all these book links are fair game for developing the article. I added information from some of the free news links, and several books, to the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cryptic; while we delete most neologisms, this one has become notable by use in reliable secondary sources such as books and Time magazines. As Yoninah notes, a simple search prior to nomination would have found plenty of such sources. I note that this is also up at DYK. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cryptic, Yoninah, & Bearian. Notability is well established and supported by a wealth of reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yoninah. Yazan (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete transitory neologism. MLA (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the presence of an academic journal article as well as news sources demonstrates that this belongs here. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (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.