 | This article was nominated for deletion on January 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
My concern is that this term might be a neologism and that this article as currently written doesn't extend much beyond a dictionary definition that might better be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. I'm raising these questions because I feel that nominating this article to articles for deletion would not be in the best interest of the project, considering the current issues involving some AfD nominations. I'd rather have a dialog and work toward a consensus outside of the pressure cooker of AfD. --Ssbohio 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Plutoed" is a neologism. It is one of the few that fully meets WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. "Plutoed" has been declared Word of the Year for 2006 by an established and notable authority that each year declares a word of the year, and "Plutoed" has been the subject of multiple reliable sources. Also, to archive past words of the year and prepare for future ones, WP needs to create [[Category:Word of the Year]]. "Plutoed" is a prime example of a neologism that can and should be included in WP. CyberAnth 10:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- From American Dialect Society: "The society says its vote is for fun only and they do not act in any official capacity of introducing words into the English language." So if I get enough of my linguist friends together,
drunk them up and/or bribe themand get them to vote on a made-up word as "Word of the Year" just for funsies, post the results on a Web site and send a press release, I can get any word I want on WP too? Fuckin' sweet!
- From American Dialect Society: "The society says its vote is for fun only and they do not act in any official capacity of introducing words into the English language." So if I get enough of my linguist friends together,
- Seriously, the only sources for notability listed are republications of the same information from the press release. The press release - as well as these republications, which I'm assuming you believe are relevant because you believe they demonstrate other organizations providing credibility to the award - also list words ADS recognizes as runners-up (climate canary) and winners of categorical awards, such as "Most Outrageous" Word of the Year 2006, Cambodian accessory, referring to "Angelina Jolie’s adopted child who is Cambodian." Want to get started writing those articles, then defending their inevitable RfDs?
- In other words, got any proof this word was notable before some group holding a shits-and-giggles contest said it was? Here, I'll get you started: Out of the top 50 Google results, here are the only ones that aren't talking about the society's selection:
- There's also a blog started Aug. 24, 2006, named http://plutoed.com/ that takes credit for it. None of these sources give it notability. Why ADS? Because they're old? Because they're academics? Or because they hit that magic "reputable news outlet" clause in WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms?
- If that's all it takes - a reputable news organization republishing a press release - then this system is horribly broken. 68.226.181.21 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- "...then this system is horribly broken". I could not possibly agree more. Check out Rusty trombone - and then realize it has survived not one but two Articles for deletion nominations (see here and here) with only the Urban Dictionary (a "dictionary" anyone can edit it) as its reference. CyberAnth 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, not really what I'm talking about - I'm saying WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms is broken because "reputable news outlets" can, and do, often republish well-made, well-managed press releases about spurious events like this one. If a published, edited dictionary that's broadly circulated and used professionally - say, OED or M-W, for example - added, or at least publicly recognized, the term, I wouldn't have a problem with it - that act doesn't need a press release's publication in the media to make it notable. 68.226.181.21 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I referenced plutoed.com because it was registered before the contest."There's also a blog started Aug. 24, 2006 ..." 68.226.181.21 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, this is on Wiktionary [1], probably where it belongs with all the other words on WP that are considered notable only because they won Word of the Year and got the Associated Press to run the press release. 68.226.181.21 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not subjective. Are you saying that articles like Rusty trombone are more notable than Plutoed? - CyberAnth 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The verb "pluto" and its past tense variation "plutoed" appears to have first been coined by Michael Soussan (aka Yoova)from Dallas, TX who posted the term and its definition in urbandictionary.com in August 24, 2006: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pluto