410:, that policy does not apply to this article. The article draws on secondary sources that describe the phrase's existing popularity; it is not an attempt to popularize the phrase. Yes, the phrase "basic bitch" is offensive, but there is no policy that says titles should be censored, either. Compare the many specimens in
764:, but that guideline says: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge." However, as per Melchoir and Chase, there is enough coverage in secondary sources that prove that this is ready for use and coverage in Knowledge.
600:
It's impossible to decide whether a phrase warrants a
Knowledge article without searching for secondary sources covering that particular phrase! It has nothing to do with how popular the phrase is or was. For all you or I know, every one of those phrases does merit an article, and nobody has gotten
585:
from the 50s. These are just a couple random ones I threw into the search that came to mind, but I'm sure there's more. Point is, there's a much higher propensity to include these fad sayings into wikipedia before they've even had a chance to stand the test of time. I think this article should be
424:
I'm concerned that some of the negative responses to the article are motivated by the following logic: It's got a naughty word in it, and encyclopedias can't have naughty words, and the whole thing makes me feel bad, so let me think of a plausible-sounding excuse to kill it. Honestly, when I first
491:
Those other articles are related, but they don't cover the same ground. The references describe "basic bitch" as a female identifier that suggests social and class privilege. Unless I've missed it, those sources don't argue that the phrase (or the people it targets) is synonymous with those other
518:
Social and class privilege? I've no idea where you're getting that from as the phrase just seems to mean "ordinary woman", which is quite the opposite. The lead tells us that the phrase is ambiguous and so it seems that we don't have a clearly defined topic here. I still don't agree that the
405:
Let's be precise about the issue. If by "neologism" you mean a phrase coined in the last five years, then yes, it's a phrase coined in the last five years. There is no policy on
Knowledge that says we can't or shouldn't have articles on such phrases. If you're referring specifically to
386:
The nomination complains that this is a neologism and I agree. The slang is a deletion issue because it's the article title, which unacceptably offensive and colloquial. The sources provided are shallow opinion pieces – routine tabloid journalism. The idea that liking
473:, we shouldn't spawn new pages every time someone uses new slang to express existing ideas. I'm not persuaded that this phrase is precise enough or common enough to merit being a blue link. For another policy supporting this see
238:, in that it does go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry; it provides history and commentary on the phrase, both with references. I agree that the article has "issues", in that a few sentences appear to include
726:
refers to article content, not article topics, and this article discusses the history of the term and interpretations of it, making it more than merely a dictionary entry. This nomination and the delete !votes reek of
169:
418:, not a delete !vote at AfD.) Finally, the sources vary in how shallow they are; the articles from NYMag, Paper, and The American Reader aren't shallow at all. No one here is advocating that people who like
260:
356:
is a rationale for deletion, but it doesn't apply to this article. It says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content." This article
788:- I waded into this 100% sure it was a non-notable neologism. Actually, I learned that is a notable neologism. Passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece. Nicely done article, by the way.
422:
should be denigrated on that basis. The fact that some people do so is tragic and stupid! But
Knowledge shouldn't shy away from describing trends just because they're tragic and stupid.
122:
230:; the article already lists references from Paper, Time, NYMag, The American Reader, The Guardian, Vogue, and Forbes that are dedicated to the topic. The topic also satisfies
163:
290:
449:
The phrase may have been coined recently but the underlying concepts are not new. We already have content for the concept of being an ordinary person at
425:
saw that the article existed, I expected it to be garbage, too. But it's useful and informative, and there's enough depth in the sources to work with.
205:
496:
applies to articles that attempt to be primary sources. This article is the opposite: a tertiary source that references secondary sources.
411:
234:, as (1) the phrase is in wide use, and (2) there are treatments in secondary sources. And the article satisfies the following paragraph,
129:
748:
686:
605:; sources have already been identified. The topic doesn't need to "stand the test of time". The sources aren't going anywhere.
95:
90:
17:
239:
99:
728:
184:
151:
82:
569:
Why is it when I look up extremely popular phrases from earlier decades, there isn't a wikipedia page dedicated to it?
732:
832:
524:
482:
415:
396:
340:
40:
537:. Now that you're aware of that, if I were to emphasize that point in the article, would it change your !vote?
534:
333:
Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms...
145:
304:
274:
235:
213:
828:
660:
141:
36:
813:
797:
780:
752:
690:
664:
627:
614:
595:
546:
528:
505:
486:
434:
400:
373:
344:
312:
282:
251:
217:
64:
656:
620:
582:
520:
478:
392:
336:
227:
201:
744:
682:
191:
177:
610:
542:
501:
430:
369:
295:
265:
247:
793:
624:
454:
209:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
827:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
470:
86:
809:
773:
723:
349:
324:
157:
391:
is a key trait shows what junk this is. We're an encyclopedia, not Urban
Dictionary.
738:
676:
591:
462:
458:
55:
761:
703:
648:
606:
538:
497:
493:
474:
426:
407:
365:
353:
328:
243:
231:
789:
578:
116:
602:
450:
78:
70:
806:
767:
574:
652:
587:
466:
457:. The idea of conforming to fashion trends is covered at pages such as
242:, but that problem can be corrected; it isn't a rationale for deletion.
465:. We even have other neologisms covering similar ground such as
821:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
570:
601:
around to writing one yet. Well, we don't need to guess about
414:. (Even if the article did need a new title, that's a job for
261:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
200:
This article has a number of issues. Most prominently
112:
108:
104:
208:
176:
364:
been expanded with additional encyclopedic content.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
835:). No further edits should be made to this page.
519:sources are adequate and so my !vote stands.
291:list of Language-related deletion discussions
190:
8:
289:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
673:Melchoir has advocated a "keep" position. –
288:
258:
760:. The biggest argument for deletion is
360:contain more than a definition; it has
7:
412:Category:Pejorative terms for people
577:from the 80s don't warrant a page.
24:
352:isn't a rationale for deletion.
805:as notable neologism. Grognard
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
798:19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
781:16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
753:03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
691:03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
665:05:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
628:09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
615:09:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
596:09:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
547:06:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
529:12:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
506:10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
487:09:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
435:00:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
401:00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
374:00:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
345:23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
313:22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
283:22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
252:21:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
218:20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
814:02:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
65:09:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
852:
619:That just sounds like an
824:Please do not modify it.
535:Abby Schreiber's article
32:Please do not modify it.
226:. The topic satisfies
204:. The term is also a
706:– coverage includes
228:Knowledge:Notability
812:Ping when replying
729:just unencyclopedic
716:The Huffington Post
623:argument to me. ~
416:WP:Requested moves
48:The result was
779:
494:WP:NOT#JOURNALISM
475:WP:NOT#JOURNALISM
455:man in the street
315:
311:
285:
281:
240:original research
63:
843:
826:
778:
776:
765:
420:Sex and the City
389:Sex and the City
309:
307:
301:
279:
277:
271:
236:WP:WORDISSUBJECT
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
851:
850:
846:
845:
844:
842:
841:
840:
839:
833:deletion review
822:
774:
766:
733:I don't like it
583:Submarine races
305:
300:
296:
275:
270:
266:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
849:
847:
838:
837:
817:
816:
800:
783:
755:
696:
695:
694:
693:
668:
667:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
617:
581:from the 60s.
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
511:
510:
509:
508:
463:designer label
459:fashion victim
440:
439:
438:
437:
423:
379:
378:
377:
376:
317:
316:
298:
286:
268:
255:
254:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
848:
836:
834:
830:
825:
819:
818:
815:
811:
808:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
782:
777:
771:
770:
763:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
734:
730:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:User:Melchoir
646:
643:
642:
629:
626:
622:
618:
616:
612:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
507:
503:
499:
495:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
436:
432:
428:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
314:
308:
303:
302:
292:
287:
284:
278:
273:
272:
262:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
823:
820:
802:
785:
768:
757:
737:
736:
720:Cosmopolitan
719:
715:
711:
707:
699:
675:
674:
644:
625:booyabazooka
579:Talking Head
419:
388:
361:
357:
332:
320:
294:
264:
223:
210:Keithonearth
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
657:Clubjustin4
621:other stuff
603:Basic bitch
451:average joe
354:WP:NOT#DICT
329:WP:NOT#DICT
164:free images
79:Basic bitch
71:Basic bitch
575:Chill Pill
297:Rcsprinter
267:Rcsprinter
202:notability
58:Sandstein
829:talk page
653:User:Gtwy
586:deleted.
521:Andrew D.
479:Andrew D.
471:WP:DICDEF
393:Andrew D.
337:Andrew D.
206:Neologism
37:talk page
831:or in a
749:contribs
708:New York
687:contribs
607:Melchoir
539:Melchoir
533:It's in
498:Melchoir
467:normcore
427:Melchoir
366:Melchoir
350:WP:SLANG
325:WP:SLANG
306:(gossip)
276:(notify)
244:Melchoir
123:View log
39:or in a
790:Carrite
731:" and "
710:, MTV,
492:terms.
469:. Per
362:already
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
810:(talk)
762:WP:NEO
718:, and
645:Delete
408:WP:NEO
321:Delete
232:WP:NEO
142:Google
100:delete
807:Chess
775:Talk
769:Tavix
739:Chase
724:SLANG
712:Salon
677:Chase
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
803:Keep
794:talk
786:Keep
758:Keep
745:talk
735:". –
702:per
700:Keep
683:talk
661:talk
651:and
647:Per
611:talk
592:talk
588:Gtwy
573:and
571:Jive
543:talk
525:talk
502:talk
483:talk
461:and
453:and
431:talk
397:talk
370:talk
358:does
341:talk
327:and
323:per
248:talk
224:Keep
214:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
50:keep
704:GNG
331:, "
299:123
269:123
192:TWL
121:– (
796:)
772:|
751:)
747:/
722:.
714:,
689:)
685:/
663:)
655:.
613:)
594:)
545:)
527:)
504:)
485:)
477:.
433:)
399:)
372:)
343:)
335:"
293:.
263:.
250:)
216:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
792:(
743:(
727:"
681:(
659:(
609:(
590:(
541:(
523:(
500:(
481:(
429:(
395:(
368:(
339:(
310:@
280:@
246:(
212:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.