Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum bogodynamics (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum bogodynamics[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Quantum bogodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No reliable sources demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. It's fine that somebody somewhere made a joke about something, or that some people repeated it, but that doesn't mean it gets a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quite surprisingly there is an actual journal article discussing the impact of computer speak on the English language (including the term "quantum bogodynamics"). "Bogosity" (a redirect) appears 50+ times in Google Scholar (including one from the 1950s). Google Books provides three more sources demonstrating usage of "quantum bogodynamics". – 74 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Google Books shows multiple copies of FOLDOC, the source upon which this article was directly based, all but two of which are the entirely unreliable Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases (for the second time here at AFD in as many days), and a novel, which isn't a source at all. The journal article, unsurprisingly, doesn't document any such thing as quantum bogodynamics. Its coverage of the subject amounts to exactly 4 words: "such as ‘quantum bogodynamics’". It does document the propensity of on-line computer programming communities to create neologisms, such as "quantum bogodynamics". And the other Google Scholar hits aren't even about either quantum bogodynamics or bogosity. The 1954 article is about economics, in fact. Counting Google hits, even Google Scholar hits, isn't research. Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I specifically excluded the multiple copies of "Webster's" whatevers. Ignoring those, we have three books using the term. You might claim that they are unreliable (and you are probably at least half-right) but they still show that the term has entered usage. As to the journal article, I don't have access to read it, so I don't know how accurate your assessment of its coverage is. – 74 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, those three books, as I said, comprise two more copies of FOLDOC, and a novel, which isn't a source. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't document terms that "have entered usage". This is an encyclopaedia, and articles only exist if the people, places, events, concepts, or things denoted by the terms have been documented. An article on bogosity or quantum bogodynamics requires that the subjects of bogosity and quantum bogodynamics have been documented, not that someone has merely uttered the word somewhere in a treatise on (say) economics. So far, you have cited zero sources actually documenting this subject, but instead are simply counting Google hits that match a word or phrase. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry, I must've wandered into Articles for Research instead of Articles for Deletion. The *published* copies of FOLDOC that you so hastily dismiss do indeed provide definitions, as does the Jargon file reference already in the article. You can argue they aren't independent (but WP:N states Independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", which these are not), you can argue that they aren't reliable (one is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which bypasses self-published accusations), or you can spout random nonsense and insult me; at this point I really don't care. Have fun. – 74 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing the research is a necessary component of AFD. You aren't doing it. You're counting occasions where a word or phrase is mentioned as if they are sources, when upon examination they turn out to say nothing at all about any relevant subject. As I said, the article from the 1950s that you were so happy to hold up as evidence was about economics. Had you done the research that is required of you by our policies, and actually read the source, you would have known this. You didn't even need to read very far beyond the title and first paragraph. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry, I must've wandered into Articles for Research instead of Articles for Deletion. The *published* copies of FOLDOC that you so hastily dismiss do indeed provide definitions, as does the Jargon file reference already in the article. You can argue they aren't independent (but WP:N states Independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", which these are not), you can argue that they aren't reliable (one is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which bypasses self-published accusations), or you can spout random nonsense and insult me; at this point I really don't care. Have fun. – 74 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, those three books, as I said, comprise two more copies of FOLDOC, and a novel, which isn't a source. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't document terms that "have entered usage". This is an encyclopaedia, and articles only exist if the people, places, events, concepts, or things denoted by the terms have been documented. An article on bogosity or quantum bogodynamics requires that the subjects of bogosity and quantum bogodynamics have been documented, not that someone has merely uttered the word somewhere in a treatise on (say) economics. So far, you have cited zero sources actually documenting this subject, but instead are simply counting Google hits that match a word or phrase. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I specifically excluded the multiple copies of "Webster's" whatevers. Ignoring those, we have three books using the term. You might claim that they are unreliable (and you are probably at least half-right) but they still show that the term has entered usage. As to the journal article, I don't have access to read it, so I don't know how accurate your assessment of its coverage is. – 74 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Google Books shows multiple copies of FOLDOC, the source upon which this article was directly based, all but two of which are the entirely unreliable Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases (for the second time here at AFD in as many days), and a novel, which isn't a source at all. The journal article, unsurprisingly, doesn't document any such thing as quantum bogodynamics. Its coverage of the subject amounts to exactly 4 words: "such as ‘quantum bogodynamics’". It does document the propensity of on-line computer programming communities to create neologisms, such as "quantum bogodynamics". And the other Google Scholar hits aren't even about either quantum bogodynamics or bogosity. The 1954 article is about economics, in fact. Counting Google hits, even Google Scholar hits, isn't research. Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The Jargon File is a reliable source for hacker slang and jokes, and this has an entry there. The rest are apparently either copies of the Jargon File entry (FOLDOC, "Websters" Quotations etc) or trivial references (the journal article described above). We need multiple independent non-trivial references to establish notability, and as I don't see anything non-trivial that is independent of the Jargon File definition. Consider this a keep if any additional independent sources are described. JulesH (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Jargon that is simply not notable enough for its own article. Covered elsewhere. Waste of space. Proxy User (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per 74. Also, an edu search returns a few results http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/swil/archives/Misc_Works/mitjargonfile/hacker3.txt http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/QU/QUANTUM+BOGODYNAMICS.html http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/63/13.htm http://web.cacs.louisiana.edu/~mgr/450/burks/foldoc/37/95.htm .Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you've found 4 more copies of FOLDOC, 3 of which are clearly marked as such in their URLs. It has been copied a lot around the WWW. You've also found one copy of this very Wikipedia article, clearly marked as such with a direct hyperlink back to it, which isn't a source at all, of course. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of sources have been found already: both academic and pop-culture. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly one source, the same FOLDOC article over and over, has been found. It is taken from an identical Jargon File entry. As a self-styled collection of slang and in-jokes, that's not exactly superbly reliable. Are we aiming to be an accurate encyclopaedia, based upon reliable sources that document their subjects seriously, and so can be trusted to be accurate and truthful? Or are we to become yet another computer slang joke book, yet another FOLDOC mirror? (If the latter, why? Clearly, the world isn't short of them.) Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, "Websters Online Dictionary" and " Websters Quotations, Facts, and Phrases" seem to be 2 faces of the same source.DGG (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources provided don't really discuss the term Quantum bogodynamics in a meaningful enough way to establish notability for neologism.Nrswanson (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle G and nrswanson.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There doesn't seem to be no significant coverage as required by WP:NOTE. And I'm doubtful about the reliability of the sources as well.--Sloane (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 17 March 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.