Talk:Wannarexia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy close.

[edit] AfD closure

Should this have been closed so quickly on an assumption of bad faith? A cursory google search reveals a few recent blog posts and this one article, the other ref doesn't use the term. This article doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out at WP:NEO. Any thoughts?IvoShandor 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The newly added sources don't seem to mention the term either, which would violate WP:OR under unpublished synthesis. IvoShandor 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The better question is should it have been nominated so quickly. Also when doing a proper Google search, you need to vary the search terms. I am adding more refs. Be patient (and please try to help) Dhaluza 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No that's not actually the better question, the question is why shouldn't this be nominated, the burden of proof is on the authors not the nominator. A better question might be why didn't the nominator address concerns here first, but to assume bad faith is, to be frank, quite in the face of assume good faith anyway. Given your condescending response to my perfectly legitimate questions I can see why the nominator didn't approach the talk page here. IvoShandor 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the burden is on the author, but the burden does not need to be carried instantaneously. The nominator also has a burden of due diligence, which is also requires time. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I don't need your condescending lessons on how to do proper google searches. If a source doesn't call it wannarexia then including it here to back up what wannarexia is becomes OR, period. IvoShandor 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I was asking you to help. If that was 'condescending' then please excuse me. Dhaluza 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That is perhaps a reasonable question. It may have been better to discuss my concerns here first. Still, I believe I acted in good faith and am not aware of having violated any policy by nominating the article for AfD when I did. Specifically, "Newly-coined neologisms" is listed without qualification under WP:DP#Reasons for deletion.
Another thought that didn't occur to me until after the AfD discussion was (in my opinion prematurely) closed, is that you might get around the whole neologism business by coming up with a different name for the article. So far, I haven't had any ideas as to what that name might be, however. --Evil1987 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet another possibility that was suggested on my talk page is merging this into Anorexia nervosa. --Evil1987 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe it was a (presumably good faith) mistake (at least for a non-administrator) to close the discussion so quickly with the only "keep" vote coming from the article's author and in an assumption of bad faith. I don't believe WP:DPR#NAC gives non-administrators that type of leeway. --Evil1987 23:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dhar, excused, if it wasn't meant to be conscending, it came off as so through the implication that I basically don't know what I am doin, but I am not really interested in conflict, so your comments to the contrary of how I took the original statement are duly noted.IvoShandor 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, so let's start over

An early version of the article was prematurely nominated for deletion because the title is a neologism. This may be a common characteristic of many articles that do not belong on WP, but it is not, in and of itself, grounds for deletion.

WP:NEO discusses the problems with neologisms as article topics, but these do not apply here. The article is not about the term, it is about the condition. There is no confusion or dispute over what the term refers to or how it should be used. The use of the neologism is from a reliable source that itself traces the term to researchers in the field.

The condition clearly exists, as supported by multiple RS, both those cited and those not not yet incorporated in the article as further reading. The other references refer to 'anorexic wannabes' but Wannarexia the condition is a more encyclopedic topic than anorexic wannabes as a group. So the use of a neologism as the title is appropriate in this case.

Also WP:NAME as a policy trumps WP:NEO as a MoS guideline. It tells us to "use what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and names should be "optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Since the term 'wannarexia' has now appeared in the popular press, while 'anorexic wannabes' is found in technical papers, and only a vocal group of WP editors strongly object to using neologisms, use of Wannarexia as the title is consistent with this policy. Dhaluza 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wannarexia seems to be to fit all criteria under the guideline as a neologism. It seems a leap to imply that a term that is apparently new is going to be the blanket term to describe this condition. I certainly don't think it is the term that is the most used term or most recognized term among English speakers to describe the condition, otherwise it would appear all over the place, in other articles and sources describing this condition. It does not appear to, only in this one AP article, which stinks of some enterprising newspaper reporter trying to add a new word to the language. This is of course my opinion, I am not really vested in it or this article but I do think the current title is a violation of WP:OR. IvoShandor 02:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)""
Wannatrexia is a neologism, as stated in the AP article, but the provisions of WP:NEO don't apply in this case. I have found an academic source for the term, and incorporated it. It does appear all over the place, but mostly in blogs, which are usually depreciated as sources for WP. But the U.C. Berkeley is a reliable secondary source for this, so your concerns appear to be unnecessary. Dhaluza 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with your argument that WP:NEO does not apply to this article. For one thing, though you say that the article is about the condition and not the word, the first two sentences do appear to be about the word (N.B. I'm going to italicize it where appropriate). However, since you have found another secondary source (though I have some questions about its status as "reliable") using the term, I'm satisfied for the moment that, if the article does not meet the deletion criterion for neologisms, it meets it feebly enough to ignore. --Evil1987 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
On a second look at your Berkeley source, it appears that that webpage (as you state in the article) uses that term with a completely different meaning. I don't see anything objectionable about this, but feel it worth noting that this further indicates the article is still somewhat about the neologism, at least as it stands. --Evil1987 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Berkelee ref uses a different form of the word, wannarexics, and discusses it in the context of how anorexics deal with wannarexics. This is not a completely different meaning. This article deals with both the word and the condition it describes, which is normal for a WP article. Dhaluza 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)