Talk:neknomination

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: March–July 2014[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

This is one of those "ripped from the headlines" terms that seems to be too recent to meet CFI. There are a surprising number of Google Books hits, but none with even a snippet to verify that it's not a scanno. There are hits on Google Groups, but none seems to be more than a month or two old, and most, if not all, seem to be non-Usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neknominate (an earlier word?) seems slightly more promising in Groups: [1]. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olinguito? I think this has crossed the threshold into the sort of widespread international use that would justify inclusion despite not meeting the one-year provision of CFI. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I get hits before one-year on Google Search, however; without any time limitation there is certainly a lot of usage of this word, both on the web and the news:
  • Make no special exception. Everyone knows Google's numbers are wildly inaccurate. If you click through the pages, there are only 31 pages of results. And I have yet to find a single Google Books result that actually has the word in the search result. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to RFV. Oh, wait, it's already at RFV; people are just voting "keep" and "delete" for some reason. If it meets CFI, it'll be kept; if it doesn't, it'll be deleted and can be re-examined next year. On which note, we should check if that Russian term for "pink slime" that some people were sure would be more than just a one-year fad has seen any current use. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WritersCramp, if you can find CFI-compliant sources in Google (I imagine mainstream newspapers are fine) then please go ahead and add them. There is the spanning-one-year rule but I think Cloudcuckoo may be right about widespread use. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the tip. The poster of the +tag should have to support their assertion. I think the definition is fine with the citations it has now :) I have provided the generic google search with plenty of citations from before a year ago. The person that posted the +tag, should have done his own research first. My suggestion would be to remove the +tag and advise the editor that posted it to do his own research first and not waste other peoples time. i.e. did the editor do anything before posting the +tag? Why should I have to go on a wild goose chase everytime some guy posts a +tag, let him provide the proof to support the +tag, not the other way around. Thanks. WritersCramp (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking someone to prove a negative, i.e. prove that a word isn't in use, or (in this case) hasn't been in use for more than a year. That's not sensible. It's up to you to prove that the word meets our requirement that words have been in use for at least a year before being included. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit, all the editor had to do was perform a simple Google Search using the time range function, then they would have their proof. Example 1. WritersCramp (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added three from the The Telegraph (UK), the Belfast Telegraph, and the Toronto Star. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they don't even span a month let alone a year. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three mainstream newspapers in a month, from different countries, feels like "widespread use" to me — well, given that it isn't based on a marketing stunt/press release (see Talk:wilf) and is also all over social media. Equinox ◑ 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in "widespread use". Widespread use is for words like horse, apple, have, the, etc. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox suggested that someone find mainstream newspaper cites. I'm aware they don't meet the one-year-span provision. I added them in the hope of documenting widespread international use. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the citations, but they are not enough. And international use has nothing to do with being widespread. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The widespread use clause is for words any speaker of the language in question is expected to know, not for slang a couple of journalists found cool and is likely to be forgotten in a few months. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The verification is anything but a slam-dunk. I looked through the two main sources for CFI-compliant usage examples and found nothing older than January, which is more than enough evidence to just delete it as a protologism. It seemed in enough use recently, though, for me to bring it here where it could be considered in more depth. It's very rare for us to use the widespread-use criterion for such a new term, so it would require discussion before doing so. In short, everything I looked at said I should delete it, but I wanted to give it a chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors like Chuck Entz are a hazard to Wiktionary, you are a deletionist and you add nothing to the dictionary. Now click on this link, which you could have done and should have done before you posted your frivilous +tag: Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 . 11:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I notice the Collins Harper website shows peoples potential new word contributions to their dictionary. I notice neknominate is one of them, although that does not affect our discussion, it is just a point of interest :). The webpage might be a good place for Wiktionary editors to find and consider new words to add to Wiktionary. WritersCramp (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WritersCramp, drop the crap about Chuck Entz. This is an entriely good RFV nomination; your ignorance of CFI does not change that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan Polansky read the Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 citation, there are plenty of one-year of longer usage citations!! It is not a valid +tag, he did not even bother to check it, he just posted it without doing any research whatsoever! This is wasting everybody's time! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please place the attesting quotations at Citations:neknomination, but only those that meet the permanently recorded media criterion as per WT:ATTEST. Per common practice, permanently recorded media means printed media including those found at Google books, and Usenet. Your search is irrelevant, since it is not constrained to permanently recorded media; the first hit is Facebook, which is not permanently recorded media. Again, leave Chuck alone, and focus on attestation, since you are not going to convince us that the nomination was a poor one. And spare us the exclamation marks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely irrelevant: the Google search shows no durably-archived cites, but there are plenty of references to actions taken by local governments and other official bodies that are likely to have durably-archived records. This looks to be very difficult to verify from online sources, but we only need one cite from before February of 2013 to clinch it. I was ambivalent about nominating this in the first place, and I hope we can verify it. Still, I obviously don't agree that the nomination was frivolous or reckless- I checked the usual sources, and everything pointed to a facebook-only phenomenon that only recently went into broad usage. A broad google search normally just turns up way too much irrelevant stuff to wade through- but in this case, it would have been helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose widespread use. That is, as for WT:ATTEST, the following line should not be applied to this term, IMHO: "clearly widespread use". Other than that, let this RFV run its course as usual, and if not CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations are found, let the entry be deleted. I propose the attesting quotations are placed at Citations:neknomination, since the entry is likely to get deleted, AFAICT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Failed. Citations moved to Citations:neknomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What good does the deletion of this entry (and neknominate) serve? It was well-formatted, and given the term's widespread use in the media, it clearly qualifies as a "hot word." All this deletion ensures is that some Wiktionarian is going to have to waste time rebuilding the entry from the ground up a few months from now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a hot word in February, now it only finds occasional use. And if it becomes citable, it can be undeleted (which restores all revisions). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neknominate[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:neknomination&oldid=27845511"