Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-verbal insult


 * 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 of the debate was delete. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  22:25, Feb. 2, 2006

Pre-verbal insult
The term pre-verbal insult is a neologism. The exact phrase pre-verbal insult gets zero hits on Google, Google Book Search, Google Scholar and Google Groups. Neither are there any hits for the exact phrase preverbal insult. As documented on the article's talk page, the editor was unable to cite a source for the phrase, although sources were provided for the separate terms pre-verbal and insult. Zarquon 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The editor has now provided a source for the phrase on the article's talk page. Zarquon 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NN Neologism Compu  te  r  Jo  e  17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the author can comply with WP:CITE. Ruby 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Durova 17:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. Was going to say 'OR', but it's ascribing a new word to something everyone knows (that you can upset babies), so doesn't appear to qualify. Only one of the supposed sources use this phrase, and it doesn't convince me that this is an established term. --Malthusian (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The author of this article is Mjformica.  A look through the history of this page, and its talk page, and the history of User talk:Mjformica, shows multiple disputes and misunderstandings, and then blanking.  For instance the AfD notice was blanked from this article.  There's a single citation now.  I'm willing to assume Mjformica's good faith and accept her citation on 'pre-verbal insult', keep the phrase or merge it into another page, with a strong reminder that wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  --Lockley 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One citation doesn't make a neologism notable. I assume good faith, however the user is breaking policy. Compu  te  r  Jo  e  17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no investment in keeping or not keeping this page. It's existence is solely for the purpose of providing further information for the term "pre-verbal insult" mentioned on other mood disorder pages.  I was asked independently by two different administrators to aid in the wholesale clean up of all the psych pages.  That said, I was under the impression that our collective goal was to provide information.  I had assumed I was providing that service. As for the blanking, I did not know that a humble user could not take off a deletion notice.  I did not blank the page, I only removed the deletion notice.  Signed in the wrong syntax by Mia Culpa at 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC).
 * May I apologise, I shouldn't have given a for this. This was a simple error I made, and if I didn't make this error I'd have assumed good faith in the first place. Still that whole incident is irrelevant from the AfD.  Compu  te  r  Jo  e  19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, the call for deletion is uninformed. As noted, the premise of the nominator for deletion is flawed in that s/he is not qualified to question the term, as far as I can tell.  I expressed the opinion that this is an exercise of ego on his/her part and I stand by that surmise. Finally, I suggest you take a poll of medical professionals and see who doesn't recognize the term.  This is first year psychiatry stuff...and certainly not a neologism. Mjformica 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another citation: Are you guys going to make me do this all afternoon?... The Trauma Spectrum: hidden wounds and human resiliency, Robert Scaer, ISBN 0-393-70466-1.
 * Robert Scaer, known for his earlier book on somatic trauma "The Body Bears the Burden" puts forth the thesis that trauma covers a spectrum which includes not just dramatic events, such as accidents, abuse and environmental disasters, but also medical interventions, preverbal trauma and intrauterine events, dilemmas in bonding and institutionally or culturally sanctioned traumatic stress. It is the cumulative result of these over the life span which determines the person's adaptation to a particular near-term trauma, such as car accident, robbery, or loss, and this accumulation is literally embodied in the way the brain, nervous system, neuroendocrine system and autonomic pathways are shaped and organized by each traumatic adaptation. Scaer does an especially good job at delineating the medical conditions which arise out of traumatic stress adaptations, and gives trauma a central place in understanding medical practice. He also gathers the emerging understanding of neonatal and preverbal insult, bringing embodied, senori-motoric forms memory into the foreground and helping us see how this is reflected in somatic symptoms, bodily experience and orientation to the world and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjformica (talk • contribs) 18:34. 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. ComputerJoe, thanks for the message, and I agree that Mjformica is not observing policy.  Mjformica, I assume your good faith, and accept your credentials, and appreciate your contributions.  I think we're getting tangled up in communication and process issues.  This AfD process is imperfect but it's our best mechanism for checking the validity of articles, which means you're called on to defend your contributions to the people who review AfD's, which means providing appropriate citations that are independently verifiable, in an open and good-humored conversation.    --Lockley 19:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * May I apologise for my hypocrisy. I think at times I may not have assumed good faith and at times been a little incivil. I'm the chairman on the organisation promoting civility, and I would just like to say sorry to Mjformica for seeming a little harsh. Compu  te  r  Jo  e  21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikiquette issues aside, as long as Google has no hits for "preverbal insult" and "pre-verbal insult" my vote will probably stay 'Delete'. Just as Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms used only by academics. Basically, this is still a term that a select group of people use instead of "something that upsets a baby". I view the sentence "Typically, this terminology is used by psychoanalytically trained psychiatrists and object relations theorists" the same way as I do "Dis word is used by da WELNEY KREW holla". Ignoring the wording, both sentences basically say the same thing: "This sentence is used by a single group and no-one else". I.e. slang, albeit posh slang. --Malthusian (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2006 (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.