Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parentheses states


 * 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.  So Why  11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parentheses states

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. My initial prodding was with the comment that a neologism, even by a famous author, is still a neologism. This term returns fewer that 420 non-WP ghits. Of these ghits, over 240 are for a book which uses the term in its title, and of the remaining 170 many are for other meanings of the word combination (many of these hits are for explanations of what a parenthetical term refers to, e.g., "The number in parentheses states that..."). There is little evidence from this that this term is likely to grow beyond a neologism and into a widely used term. Even if it were to grow into a widely used term, it shouldn't be a Wikipedia article until such time that it is a widely-used term - not now. This fails WP:NEO and should be deleted, though it may be acceptable (if an article on it doesn't exist) at Wiktionary. Grutness...wha?  11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A neologism that seems to be used by Tom Wolfe and overused Ed Driscoll, but nobody else. Difficult to spell, too long to be a buzzphrase, definitely too nerdy... even Ed Driscoll can't seem to use the phrase without having to go into a detailed explanation about who invented it and what he's talking about.  The rest of us just talk about the "coasts".  Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tentatively suggest a redirect to Red states and blue states. Wolfe defines the neologism by saying, "They're not blue states, the states on the coast. They're parenthesis states." Mandsford suggests that the term is a favorite of Ed Driscoll, who I gather also uses 'red states' and 'blue states' fairly often, though I admit I don't read Driscoll. Cnilep (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When did "nerdiness" or difficulty explaining become a basis for deleting a Wikipedia entry? Half the stuff on Wikipedia, and I think you'd agree, would be gone by those standards. Moreover, the article cites at least two specific instances in the print media where the term was used, meaning that it isn't just Driscoll that has used or cited it, but others as well. Not sure why you'd suggest it was only Driscoll. By your standard of what "the rest of us" call an area, I'd suspect most people call the Midwest the Midwest, or equivalent, and not "Flyover country." And yet, Flyover country has its own (unsourced) Wikipedia article. -- TerryCloth (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nerdiness and difficulty in explaining a term are not reasons for deleting an article. They are, however, clear reasons why this term is unlikely to ever be anything but a failed neologism. And being a failed neologism is a reason for deletion. Since you bring up "Flyover country", BTW, a quick comparison is called for: "Parentheses states" generates 470 non-WP ghits; "Flyover country" generates 173,000. Certainly the latter's article needs sources, but it is clearly a widely-used term. "Parentheses states" is not. Grutness...wha?  08:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The word isn't being defined in the article, nor is it unsourced or constituting original resource, the two primary ways according to WP:NEO that an article would fail WP:NEO. See []. Also, why is this properly source article up for speedy deletion when others fitting completely into the neologism category don't even come close to the standard you're sketching out here? Perzine, anyone? which was first created in 2005, was requested more sources in December 2008, and which encountered no apparent attempt at deletion by any editors at any time? -- TerryCloth (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points, firstly this article is not up for speedy deletion (which just requires one administrator to agree with the person who tagged it), it has been nominated for regular deletion, which allows seven days (at least) of discussion (to which anyone can contribute) so that consensus about whether it should be kept, deleted, merged, redirected, transwikied (or occasionally some other outcome) can form. Secondly, see WP:OTHERSTUFF - just because A.N.Other article exists has no relation on whether this one should or not. If you feel that any article on Wikipedia does not belong, then feel free to nominate it for deletion and it will be considered on its merits. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel both belong. WP:OTHERSTUFF or not, it's nonsensical to suggest that the non-implementation of an unevenly applied policy, ill-defined or not, is irrelevant to the discussion of any single article. As an inclusionist, I'm not going to go around and nominate deletions of articles that serve even a narrow purpose, even if they could be improved. That Perzine is ripe for deletion if the same standards were applied to it is something you'll have to consider in tandem with this article. I just find it odd that so long as everyone has an established fiefdom on Wikipedia -- Star Wars characters anyone? -- the most miniscule, obscure references in those categories can get protected, but if it's a mainline, fully sourced article about a narrow subject matter, those are the first to come under the axe. If I'd labeled the article an Americanism and not a neologism I am skeptical that we'd be here. And thus, the arbitrariness of the process lumbers on. -- TerryCloth (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if it had been speediable, I would have deleted it myself (given that I am an admin). It wasn't - which is why I listed it here when the prod tag was removed. As for WP:NEO, it fails this due to the section  Neologisms [...] for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia.  Note that secondary sources, as defined in the section above this, must primarily be about the term - not sources which simply use it, as is the case in the listed references for this article. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a notable neologism, and a duplicate concept at that. Powers T 12:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's it a duplicate of? --TerryCloth (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * West Coast of the United States and East Coast of the United States. The political implications are discussed in Red states and blue states.  Powers T 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete runs contrary to WP:NEO ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:30, 21 July 2009 (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.