Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orphan initialism


 * 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   redirect to Acronym. History retained so that someone can create a properly-sourced article out of this, because it's obviously a real concept, even if at the moment it's sources are dubious. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphan initialism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The whole article stands on one single blog entry. Both WP:NEO and WP:N apply. There, I have an account (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete too neo, too soon to be a notable, nay significant term. Consign to the WPB of history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep supported by a second SME source now. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that about.com is a reliable source? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That article is written by a "professor emeritus of rhetoric and English at Armstrong Atlantic State University and the author of two grammar and composition textbooks for college freshmen" so that sounds fairly reliable. (WP:RS allows academics writing self-published sources on the area of their expertise.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, only one of the reliable sources uses the term: another cite on the topic seems not to use the term at all. Curiously, there is a Category:Orphan Initialism which seems to be older than the article. TLT, whoops I mean TheLongTone (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editors should also see Articles for deletion/Pseudo-acronym, which closed with consensus to merge that page to Acronym. At that time the page 'Pseudo-acronym' was similar in spirit to Orphan initialism; it's lead section even mentioned the latter term as a variant of the same phenomenon. Cnilep (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While I have never been happy with the fact that the list of examples far, far outweighs the description of the concept, that is a matter for clean-up. The fact is that at least two of the cited sources, Slate and the Washington Post, are presumed-reliable "old media" sources describing the phenomenon, and About.com plus two blogs provide more depth (as well as the label "orphan–" or "orphaned initialism"). Note, too, that Arnold Zwicky, the blogger alluded to in the nomination, is a noted linguist credited with coining similar terms for language phenomena (e.g. Recency illusion; "Extrais", one of several competing terms for Double copula). Cnilep (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Although, so far as I can see, neither Slate nor Washington Post mention the phrase "Orphan Initialism", correct? 219.79.90.11 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is correct; they do not use the phrase but do describe the phenomenon. I believe this is in the spirit of Wikipedia policy as described at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that the term itself is the topic of the WP article and the term is not referenced. Thus the term itself is not yet notable, perhaps will never be notable. Wikipedia may not be used to enhance or create notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point that Cnilep is making is that even though those two articles don't cite the actual phrase, they count as reliable sources towards the notability of the *concept*, as opposed to the notability of the phrase itself. This is relevant in light of the policy Cnilep linked, which is a fair point, but frankly I don't think it's enough to save this article. 219.79.90.11 (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay Jay What did I do? 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. I agree with Cnilep on the notability of concept. See further interest here.   There's enough interest in the topic to make it into the title of a rap album.  M Pinck (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A random post on a forum and a rapper of dubious notability? Seriously? Very interesting how someone in that thread offered a link to the "Inevitable Wikipedia list of what they call 'orphan initialisms.'" (bold mine). By the way, if we must keep this article, I propose we change its title to "Orphan acronym", in light of recent consensus at Acronym. Also please note that if this article disappears, the concept will still have sufficient coverage in a subsection of the Acronym article. (Interestingly, said section is entitled "pseudo-acronym", not "orphan initialism".) 220.246.157.1 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept (under multiple names) is covered in the brand and marketing literature as well as elsewhere. See for instance, , , ,  and . M Pinck (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to agree on the meaning of "coverage" of a concept. Please do integrate any relevant refs into the article. I would do it myself but I am not sure what the links you offer support. Please note that we are not debating whether the phenomenon exists or not, but whether it deserves its own Wikipedia article, when a section in Acronym would do. 220.246.157.1 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, this article is being proposed for deletion for not being notable. From what I read from the notability page, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The references listed, along with the references in the article itself, particularly the Slate article  seem to fulfill the criteria. M Pinck (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slate article, yeah, we discussed that above. I was talking about your links. "SOAP, now an empty acronym, used to be the Simple Object Access Protocol, and sometimes is expanded as Service-Oriented Access Protocol". Is this an example of what you consider "significant coverage"? Also I cannot see anything relevant in some other links you offer, sorry if I missed it. 220.246.157.1 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 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.