Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factlet

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. No evidence that an article on this topic can ever be more than a dictionary definition. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factlet

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

Article on a neologism. Powers ^T 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"WP is not a dictionary"... especially for a word that seems to be only "advocated." Borock (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has passed the neologism stage and is being used in mainstream media such as the Mother Jones which has a column called Factlet of the Day. In addition, there are tertiary sources such as the Urban Dictionary and the Free Dictionary. The term appears increasingly in mainstream publications such as the San Jose Mercury News. It meets the general notability guideline test of being the subject of substantive articles; for example, the Atlantic magazine wrote an entire article on it called Down With Factoid! Up With Factlet!. New York Times language columnist William Safire wrote about it. Since there is ongoing discussion in mainstream media about how the term factlet and factoid should be used, the subject is not merely a dictionary definition but an encyclopedic topic and should be kept in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly non-trivial substantial coverage of this term, far above what I expected to see and enough to pass WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (somewhat to my surprise). The use of the word in media sources is not sufficient to verify content or establish notability of an article about a word. However, this article cites pieces by William Saffire, Alex Madrigal, and Paul Brians discussing the word as a word, as well as a category of information. Given its brevity, and the brevity of (the non-example portion of) Factoid, the two concepts might be handled in a single article, but the content should not be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the above keep !votes I took another look at this. I still think this is too close to being a dictionary entry. But maybe I'm wrong. That's the great thing about of AfD. The issue will be resolved by consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia's not a dictionary. —Davey2010→ ✉ - 22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Factoid, which is a commonly understood concept. The "factlet" discussion has some sourcing and combined with the factoid material will make for a more thorough article on what is essentially the same concept. Factlet is a neologism and a fork. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge factoid into the Factlet article. Given the discussion and evidence on these pages, the superior term, as discussed in the USAGE of the word, is factlet, with factoid being something we should merge into here. Nickmalik (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Safire article shouldn't count toward the word's notability; as the coiner, he is a primary source and not secondary. Powers ^T 01:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we have solid evidence that Safire coined the term factlet? In this New York Times article, Safire writes as if the term has already been in use.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am confused, since there is a report in The Guardian which says Safire coined factlet. Still, the 1993 Safire column suggests factlet was in use elsewhere then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing for the closing admin to consider is that if factlet merges or redirects to factoid, or vice versa, it may suggest to some readers that Wikipedia is recommending one of the other words, which might constitute original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely what "original research" means. Powers ^T 12:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a Wikipedia reader types factlet in the browser bar and Wikipedia redirects them to factoid. They're first likely to think factlet means factoid unless, of course, they finish reading the article, which most people do not do. That is, the original research aspect is that the Wikipedia redirect implies the two terms are identical, when they are not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. NOT is policy and trumps N which is a guideline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE is also just (a portion of) an essay, but it suggests that simply naming a policy does little to advance useful discussion. (Oops, see what I did there: that's another essay.) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary states, "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings [etc.] of a word or an idiomatic phrase. [...] If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." But it also states, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." If you want to participate in an argument, you really need a connected series of statements to establish your position. Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF, redirect to Factoid. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia has entries for house, blue, horse, many one-word terms. If we apply the WP:DICDEF standard tightly, then these terms and perhaps half of the encyclopedia should be deleted. But they are not, because the topics are encyclopedic, meaning Wikipedia goes beyond a mere dictionary definition and explores the topic in depth. See, if factlet is deleted on the grounds that it is a dictionary definition, then factoid should also be deleted on those same grounds. But it isn't for good reason. The wiki-article factlet goes beyond a mere definition but describes the history behind the term, how it relates to other concepts such as factoid, its origin, why this happened, its use in popular parlance. In short, I feel the topic is encyclopedic. Clearly it is a notable subject since writers such as William Safire, as well as in The Guardian and The Atlantic are devoting entire articles to it, since people are interested in this topic. A redirect implies factlet and factoid are identical, equivalent, and that would be a mistake in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As @Cnilep: pointed out, applicable policy is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is always "is there a realistic possibility that this could be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition in the future?". Not just judgeing today, but in the future, can it be expanded without a bunch of fluff? So it boils down to educated guess. In this case, I guess not and would say to delete, redirect. If then someone made a section in Factoid, then expanded it over time, and it eventually was justified as a legitimate fork, then so be it, but for now, I don't see it happening. It isn't about one word terms, it is about their utility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way to look at things. My sense is the article is already beyond a dictionary definition, already encyclopedic, imparts information especially important for news people (eg CNN) and writers, even Wikipedia contributors. Will the article expand even further in future? My guess is yes. But who knows.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it's ok if one of us is wrong. If enough people pipe in, on average, we get it right most of the time here ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to factoid. This article, in its entirety, is a discussion of why a factlet is not a factoid. If we strip the POV they mean exactly the same thing. Factoid provides some societal context and background for the development of the term, which factlet is missing (because factlet developed directly from factoid - there's not really any other context to discuss). Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Factoid. WP:DICTIONARY applies on numerous grounds, and citing UrbanDictionary as the source of the definition calls into question the reliability of that definition in the first place, so much so that a google definition query ("define:factlet") only returns Wikipedia. Even "thefreedictionary" returns a contrasting definition, so it's sort of ironic, given we're not a dictionary, and the word also isn't clearly covered by dictionaries to mean what we're saying it means. Keep in mind that for any word that exists enough, original research can be used to paste some uses of it together to form an article. That's also where the WP:NEO of DICTIONARY comes in, because it's not enough that a handful of usages occur, there has to be substantially more WP:GNG-level coverage to support the notability of the word, itself, as a subject of critical analysis. That that bar hasn't been met sufficiently for an independent article, and the fact that the sources covering the word are, themselves, advocating advancing the word into the mainstream would also suggest that, again, in the spirit of WP:NEO, the article serves more to increase notability than to cover the critical discussion of a word-already-notable in an encyclopedic way. --slakr^\ talk / 02:17, 20 June 2014 (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.