Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-zilla (suffix)

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 no consensus. Near even spilt, with neither side enjoying a clear advantage. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-zilla (suffix)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the prod was contested, so i am nominating this for deletion. the 'internet phenomenon' appears to be non notable, as it lacks third party, reliable sources. the current sources are either irrelevant to the internet phenomenon, or not reliable sources. notability has simply not been established. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

comment the 'internet phenomenon' was renamed to 'suffix': 21:03 (Move log) . . Cyclopia (talk | contribs) moved Zilla (Internet phenomenon) to -zilla (suffix), i suppose in an attempt to make the article match the only semi relevant sources. this is still not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I contested the PROD on the basis of sources, and since then I did some edit to improve the article. It has been moved because "internet phenomenon" was way reductive -it seems to be an English language suffix used also away from computer stuff, like in bridezilla. The suffix however is documented, and it seems to have been also at the center of ~~a lawsuit.~~ a couple lawsuits. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @037 · 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, it's about a word ending. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree, but the fact that it has been at the center of two lawsuits seems interesting enough to bring it here, too. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-zilla. I don't know if this belongs on Wiktionary, maybe... maybe not. Being the center of a lawsuit is not, by itself, a reason to keep any article on Wikipedia and this is no exception. We need non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Where are they? JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The -zilla article starts with the false statement that -zilla is an English suffix. This statement should be removed not because it is false, but because it is undocumented. There is a list of Names of internet related entities and one English word, bridezilla. None of these was formed by adding a suffix to a root word. They were all compounded from a root and the hind portion of the name of a fictional beast. Proper names can be formed by whatever means the owner of the entity so named desires. The resulting name means only the thing so named. There is no definite meaning carried by -zilla. If those who name their entity including the letters zilla are pleased to have some association between their name and monstrous or big, that is their concern, it does not make -zilla an English language suffix. Bridezilla is a humorous reference to a bride overly concerned with matching a difficult to achieve ideal in her wedding and seemingly oblivious to the fact that not everyone necessarily shares the full extent of her eagerness and joy in playing wedding. This does not give -zilla a definite meaning and does not make -zilla a suffix. Lawsuits about owned Trademarks do not make English language words either. They are not a suitable reference for notability.--Fartherred (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually it is documented -see [1] for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclopia. Needs work but has potential for expansion. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly merge with Internet-related prefixes. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Copyrighted and trademarked names are ephemeral. Dozens can be produced during a week and they can disappear as fast as they are produced. English words are produced by acceptance by a significant portion of English language speakers. Trademarked and copyrighted names are not translated from English into French or Italian when they are part of a translated text, because they are not part of the English language in the first place. There are two common nouns referred to in "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" which are claimed to use a suffix -zilla. Both of them neologisms. Momzilla is used to mean a mother who has a quarrel with the father and refuses to see him on this website[[2]]. In "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" it is claimed to mean the mother of bridezilla. There are many well established English language suffixes such as -able, aceous, -ment and -pathy which do not have their own Wikipedia articles because they are not particularly notable. They are documented in most of the English language dictionaries ever written, but that does not make them notable. They are only ordinary suffixes. The much less established -zilla used in a couple of dubious words does not deserve an article. According to WP:NOT#NEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." My vote is still delete.--Fartherred (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the names of various things are (arguably) based on a back-formation from Godzilla does not make a list of those names encyclopedic. (Note, too, that Mozilla was allegedly formed by blending the words Mosaic killer, not *Mo and Godzilla. Many of the other names may have been formed from Mozilla, not Godzilla. I don't know, and there are no references currently cited arguing either way.) It is not even obvious that this is a suffix, as I can see no shared meaning among the various names. The content on Toho's lawsuit against Davezilla might be merged to Davezilla. The 'List of -zillas' is trivia with no attested notability or significance. Cnilep (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand the information about the lawsuits. Godzilla is a well-known part of modern pop culture across the world, and it's obviousl where the suffix is coming from, even if it has no definite meaning. Would agree with Cyclopia that this should go to Wiktionary if not for the lawsuits, but the prominence of the name--and the fact that it's kinda its own thing, separate from Godzilla (and wouldn't really belong in that article)--should keep the lawsuits covered here. ~GMH talk to me 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.