- 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. A Wiktionary link already exists at Edgy. Sandstein 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Edgy (adjective) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obviously fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The solution for terms like this which have Wiktionary coverage and no reasonable target Wikipedia is to soft redirect to the sister project.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary, agreed. See more specifically WP:POINTWIKT within policy WP:DICDEF, which recommends this procedure for Wikipedia pages "which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment". If material for an encyclopedic article is later found, a soft redirect will have left the page history in place; no information will be lost. Nor does a soft redirect discourage re-creation of the page.
- I've checked that the Wiktionary pages edgy and troll exist, although neither has definitions corresponding to the Internet usages described in the present Wikipedia page. When the attestations required by Wiktionary are found for those senses, they can be added to the relevant pages at any time.
- — Syrenka V ( talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary Agree with two commentors. Pretty clear from above. Lee Vilenski( talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Carrite ( talk) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This isn't a place where we need a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
21:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not just one but several policies and guidelines justify a soft redirect for dictionary definitions in cases where they might be re-created as Wikipedia articles. Besides WP:POINTWIKT within WP:DICDEF (= WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary!) as above, also check out the section Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project within the guideline WP:SISTER, and the section WP:ATD-TRANS within the policy WP:Deletion policy. A soft redirect is the ideal solution in such cases, in that it deters re-creation of the page as a mere dictionary definition, and refers readers to Wiktionary, yet sets few barriers to re-creation as a proper encyclopedic article if sources for such are ever found.
- —
Syrenka V (
talk)
03:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except this is already a disambiguated page name, the definition on this page has no references and isn't mentioned on Wiktionary, and there's no reason to think this would be re-created or that "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" (page created October 27, and 59 total views since then, many of which would have been AfD participants). I'm neutral as to
Edgy being a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just now added this definition (slightly reworded as "Exhibiting behavior that is disconcerting or alarming in an effort to troll others") to the Wiktionary article edgy, with four attestations spanning the period from 2012 to 2017. They weren't at all difficult to find. I've also already made the Wikipedia article Edgy a soft redirect, with a hatnote to its former target; it had been a hard redirect to Edge (video game), which was not especially intuitive or helpful compared to the Wiktionary definition, but is probably worth a hatnote.
- It's true that readers are unlikely to use "Edgy (adjective)" as a search term on Wikipedia—they would use "edgy" instead—but that doesn't mean they aren't searching for encyclopedic information on this word, or that the page is unlikely to be re-created. There is definitely an encyclopedic concept here; the only reason an encyclopedic article meeting the standards of WP:WORDISSUBJECT within WP:DICDEF cannot be written at present is that (AFAICT) primary source material on this term hasn't been synthesized into secondary sources. If you don't believe the primary sources contain "information on the social or historical significance of the term", check out the search I used to find attestations for the dictionary definition: a Google News search on "edgy troll internet".
- I suppose there might be some question whether the focus is really on the term edgy or on the concept of Edginess—similar to what WP:WORDISSUBJECT says about No worries (focus on the term) versus Truthiness (focus on the concept). But the primary sources tend to show that the term is important to the people who go to such lengths to get it applied to themselves; I don't think it was an accident that the article created was Edgy (adjective) rather than Edginess, or that the likelihood of re-creation after deletion would be negligible. The cost of a soft redirect is very low even if I'm wrong about this; and if I'm right, the creation of a soft redirect will save a lot of trouble in the future.
- — Syrenka V ( talk) 06:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except this is already a disambiguated page name, the definition on this page has no references and isn't mentioned on Wiktionary, and there's no reason to think this would be re-created or that "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" (page created October 27, and 59 total views since then, many of which would have been AfD participants). I'm neutral as to
Edgy being a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- —
Syrenka V (
talk)
03:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. We already have a link to Wiktionary from Edgy. We don't need to keep convoluted titles such as this when the term that people are going to use to search already gets them where they want to go. -- Michig ( talk) 07:16, 10 November 2017 (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.
- 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. A Wiktionary link already exists at Edgy. Sandstein 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Edgy (adjective) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obviously fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The solution for terms like this which have Wiktionary coverage and no reasonable target Wikipedia is to soft redirect to the sister project.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary, agreed. See more specifically WP:POINTWIKT within policy WP:DICDEF, which recommends this procedure for Wikipedia pages "which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment". If material for an encyclopedic article is later found, a soft redirect will have left the page history in place; no information will be lost. Nor does a soft redirect discourage re-creation of the page.
- I've checked that the Wiktionary pages edgy and troll exist, although neither has definitions corresponding to the Internet usages described in the present Wikipedia page. When the attestations required by Wiktionary are found for those senses, they can be added to the relevant pages at any time.
- — Syrenka V ( talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary Agree with two commentors. Pretty clear from above. Lee Vilenski( talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Carrite ( talk) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This isn't a place where we need a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
21:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not just one but several policies and guidelines justify a soft redirect for dictionary definitions in cases where they might be re-created as Wikipedia articles. Besides WP:POINTWIKT within WP:DICDEF (= WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary!) as above, also check out the section Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project within the guideline WP:SISTER, and the section WP:ATD-TRANS within the policy WP:Deletion policy. A soft redirect is the ideal solution in such cases, in that it deters re-creation of the page as a mere dictionary definition, and refers readers to Wiktionary, yet sets few barriers to re-creation as a proper encyclopedic article if sources for such are ever found.
- —
Syrenka V (
talk)
03:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except this is already a disambiguated page name, the definition on this page has no references and isn't mentioned on Wiktionary, and there's no reason to think this would be re-created or that "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" (page created October 27, and 59 total views since then, many of which would have been AfD participants). I'm neutral as to
Edgy being a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just now added this definition (slightly reworded as "Exhibiting behavior that is disconcerting or alarming in an effort to troll others") to the Wiktionary article edgy, with four attestations spanning the period from 2012 to 2017. They weren't at all difficult to find. I've also already made the Wikipedia article Edgy a soft redirect, with a hatnote to its former target; it had been a hard redirect to Edge (video game), which was not especially intuitive or helpful compared to the Wiktionary definition, but is probably worth a hatnote.
- It's true that readers are unlikely to use "Edgy (adjective)" as a search term on Wikipedia—they would use "edgy" instead—but that doesn't mean they aren't searching for encyclopedic information on this word, or that the page is unlikely to be re-created. There is definitely an encyclopedic concept here; the only reason an encyclopedic article meeting the standards of WP:WORDISSUBJECT within WP:DICDEF cannot be written at present is that (AFAICT) primary source material on this term hasn't been synthesized into secondary sources. If you don't believe the primary sources contain "information on the social or historical significance of the term", check out the search I used to find attestations for the dictionary definition: a Google News search on "edgy troll internet".
- I suppose there might be some question whether the focus is really on the term edgy or on the concept of Edginess—similar to what WP:WORDISSUBJECT says about No worries (focus on the term) versus Truthiness (focus on the concept). But the primary sources tend to show that the term is important to the people who go to such lengths to get it applied to themselves; I don't think it was an accident that the article created was Edgy (adjective) rather than Edginess, or that the likelihood of re-creation after deletion would be negligible. The cost of a soft redirect is very low even if I'm wrong about this; and if I'm right, the creation of a soft redirect will save a lot of trouble in the future.
- — Syrenka V ( talk) 06:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except this is already a disambiguated page name, the definition on this page has no references and isn't mentioned on Wiktionary, and there's no reason to think this would be re-created or that "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" (page created October 27, and 59 total views since then, many of which would have been AfD participants). I'm neutral as to
Edgy being a soft redirect.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- —
Syrenka V (
talk)
03:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. We already have a link to Wiktionary from Edgy. We don't need to keep convoluted titles such as this when the term that people are going to use to search already gets them where they want to go. -- Michig ( talk) 07:16, 10 November 2017 (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.