Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrosticdoublespeak

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 nomination was DELETE: rough consensus in favour of deletion, evidence of sockpuppets/new accounts voting for keep has been presented, article seems to be about a non-notable term. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acrosticdoublespeak

I see no evidence that this phrase is used outside of the book mentioned, which effectively makes the article an advertisement for the book. Joyous! | Talk 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate the entry and the example provided in order to understand the term acrosticdoublespeak. Advertising a book because it's name suits the need for an effective description is helpful and humourous. To me, the casual brower, the advertising element is a non-issue, and in fact does spark intrigue as a person interested in looking into this clever form of humour. However, I am unaware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.50.33 (talk • contribs)
• Delete and I say this with no double speak - OR madeup word. TerriersFan 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the entry for acrosticdoublespeak should remain. It appears to be a valid subgenre of humor, as evidenced by the Journal of Irreproducable Results. One could argue that any Wikipedia entry is an advertisement of some sort, but if the subject matter exists and is part of our culture then it should be listed. The whole point of Wikipedia seems to be that it is an encyclopedia that does not have to limit its entries. Acrosticdoublespeak has the requisite validity to remain. Do Not Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd2albright (talk • contribs)

Note: above user's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Analysis. Studying the style of the two comments it is clear that they are speaking with the same voice. The account from which the second comment was posted has been activated, today, for this purpose. Superficially there are 30 Google hits here but they are all recycled from Wikipedia or the book's website. I do not object to the concept of advertising but rather that this term has simply not been adopted independently which it needs to be to make it encyclopaedic. TerriersFan 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• The purpose of Wikipedia is to present to the e-loving masses a broad compendium of extant knowledge. Being that knowledge is structured around ideas, the question is, "What constitutes a relevant idea?"

  At the risk of over-simplifying, I believe that three basic requirements have to be met:

  1. The idea is novel
  2. The idea represents a genuine contribution to our current thinking.
  3. the idea bears the potential for future germination.
• Acrosticdoublespeak admirably fulfills these 3 criteria, a fact which, alone, should merit its inclusion in Wikipedia.

  However, the nasty truth be told, it is not always easy to judge an idea in an independent manner. For this purpose, we sometimes feel that secondary confirmation or validation is required.

  While Acrosticdoublespeak admittedly does not shine in this regard, it certainly does pass,. The book was excerpted in The Journal of Irreproducible Results; furthermore, it served as the foundation for a 3-credit class in Penn State University.

  For those reviewers who somehow feel that inclusion of Acrosticdoublespeak is an affront to the very dignity of Wikipedia, please allow me to end this comment with two very simple questions, "Can you name a more innovative form of satire that has come forth in the last 30 years ?" and "Exactly how many leading universities have to utilize a text and how many of the world's oldest and most prestigious journals of scientific satire have to excerpt a work before it is acceptable to Wikipedia?" Do Not Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoncey dm (talk • contribs)

  • Note: above represent's Skoncey dm's only contribution to Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your three basic requirements are almost the diametric opposite of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please read the policy. If you wish to contribute to a project that has your three basic requirements, you should look elsewhere than Wikipedia. It is not the place for what you wish to do. Uncle G 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• About the so-called Analysis Just because I created an account on the same day that I submitted a comment should not belie the fact that I am a consistent user of Wikipedia. I imagine that many people create accounts on the very day that they have something to post, rather than when they first begin using Wikipedia. I believe that terriersFan's implications are unwarranted. Perhaps rather than looking into the people who post comments, TerrierFan should look into the person who created acrosticdoublespeak. As one who posts articles on scientific matters, TerrierFan might be interested to know that the creator of this form of humor has written several articles for the journal Nature and has been cited in academic literature many hundreds of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd2albright (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable neologism. NawlinWiki 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:17, 10 July 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.