439:-- again, consistent with what the article says. This is what I mean about accuracy; personal opinion or crackpottery is unverifiable OR, to be sure, but if a given statement is apparently consistent with reality, I'm willing to not declare it OR or unverifiable, and just give it some time for a source to turn up.
312:
see none of that happening here except for "quite possibly the first occurence of the term" which isn't that much of a stretch to assume and could be amended to say "first occurence of the term in popular culture." Trivia does not equal OR. If you think this article is trivia then say it, don't label it as OR. --
371:
Also, please point out exactly where the origin of the term is sourced. In the
Simpsons book? A book on the Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker culture by any stretch of the imagination -- the only thing the two have in common is that they both peaked in the 90's. So, yes, the claim about the
311:
As far as I know, works of fiction can serve as primary sources for citations. If you have seen a TV show, movie, read a novel, or played a video game... then you are allowed to cite the actual work of fiction as your source, as long as you are not providing an original interpretation of the plot. I
456:
If you reread my original post, you'll see what I think is OR. The list of uses is synthesis -- a collection of primary sources used to advance a secondary point. And the origin is unsourced. Also, the uses you note there are indeed verifiable, but they do not speak to the history of the term any
398:
The claim that "an accurate claim is an accurate claim" shows a blatant disregard for policy. Knowledge (XXG) is not in the business of truth, it is in the business of verifiability. Verifiability means being claimed in a reliable source. A book on the
Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker
426:
book is an authority on hacker culture; you'll note I only provided it as a citation for the opening paragraph (general description) and for the
Simpsons-specific claim. Additional sources will have to be found to back up the details contained in the article's second paragraph -- although the
383:
I don't know why people keep misinterpreting WP:SYN in this manner. It prohibits combining one source with another to misrepresent what the first one says; it doesn't prohibit making an accurate summarizing description of multiple sources. As to whether or not the
Simpsons book is reliable, an
432:
187:
there are citations for any of the OR. The article is attempting to detail the history of the phrase, which would be okay. I wouldn't call the usage history section a trivia section; they're trying to write a chronology here; the problem is, it's all OR.
406:
prohibit doing so to advance a point that is not supported by secondary sources. That's original research, quite obviously. There is no secondary source supporting what is advanced by the slew of primary sources, so it is original research. -
595:
To me, the issue is not OR but rather whether this article can ever be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition. What else is there to say but "Here's what it means, and here's where it was used"?
368:, they serve no purpose but to demonstrate that it's a term with widespread use in popular culture. You need an actual source for that -- a conglomeration of primary sources doesn't suffice there.
705:
Firstly, it has 5 references, 4 of them just aren't formatted into the reflist. Secondly, it doesn't read like a dicdef and is substantially larger than a dicdef. I feel it is encyclopedic. -
121:
696:
One reference is "decently well cited"? And notability is not at issue here; whether the subject is encyclopedic (as opposed to being limited to a dictionary entry) is.
579:
Well accepted parody term in popular culture. The sources are enough to demonstrate that. collecting what lies obvipous isnt OR, but a way to build articles.
483:
for the relevant information, or you have other pertinent information with sources, please add them. Otherwise, this article misses the bar by a long shot. -
338:
which points out that describing the contents of a primary source is not "original research". Or maybe it's that the definition and origin given of the term
431:
source does affirm its general thrust: that the term originated in online circles. A little bit of actual "original research" also affirms it:
563:
recognizable word and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on neologisms or terms of which there are many such published works. Best, --
197:
240:
136:, and what little information there is on the origin of the term can either be transwiki'd to Wiktionary or merged (if necessary) to
17:
650:
565:
170:
668:. A dictionary definition and a list of uses. I doubt this can ever be a full-length article; if it can, please prove me wrong. -
624:
An article to define a neologism... not our mission. Transwiki to wiktionary if it's in their mission, delete otherwise. — Carl
479:. If all unsourced information is removed from this article, then all that's left is a dicdef and a list of uses. If you have
221:
645:
88:
83:
753:
36:
92:
435:
shows it being used in the late 90s in this manner, and the earliest mentions are from mid-1994 in connection with
193:
75:
752:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
244:
669:
534:
484:
447:
408:
389:
373:
347:
299:
731:
163:
189:
260:... (sorry, it's late and I'm actin goofy). Seriously, this is mostly original research and dicdef.
735:
714:
700:
691:
674:
656:
636:
619:
600:
590:
571:
555:
551:
538:
521:
489:
451:
413:
393:
378:
351:
321:
317:
303:
286:
270:
261:
248:
226:
201:
179:
144:
57:
53:
133:
129:
710:
687:
516:
284:
256:
or however you spell that. Trivia, original research, lack of available sources, unencyclopedic,
217:
402:
And you are correct that SYN does not prevent a summarizing of multiple primary sources, but it
530:
443:
385:
343:
295:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
331:
154:
727:
158:
512:
418:
Well, we keep talking about OR, but I'd need to know what part(s) of the article you think
361:
357:
335:
665:
547:
313:
49:
476:
706:
697:
683:
631:
597:
586:
422:
OR. Right now our discussion is rather abstract. Also, I'm not arguing whether the
279:
212:
141:
79:
615:
109:
515:, even if a popular one. It's already on Wiktionary, so no need for a transwiki.
364:. The OR is a question of synthesis. Even if every single one of those uses is
257:
436:
342:
was viewed as original research -- yet it was correct and is now sourced.--
464:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
627:
581:
137:
71:
63:
611:
442:
My regard for -- and command of -- policy is deeper than you realize.--
294:
Started sourcing it. The issues with this article are not insoluble.--
511:, only source cited is a trivial, passing mention. It's simply a
746:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
457:
further than "it is at least as old as X." Anything else is OR.
644:: Just as a reminder, if we merge, then we cannot delete per
460:
As for "just give it some time for a source to turn up" ...:
356:
It also may be possible that some people are unaware of the
116:
105:
101:
97:
469:
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed
330:
It may be simply that some people are unaware of the
648:, i.e. we would redirect without deleting. Best, --
546:, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry. --
157:is a style guideline, not a content guideline. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
756:). No further edits should be made to this page.
682:decently well cited, notable in its own right. -
211:- I beat teh interweb. The end guy is hard.
8:
726:(it even has some rererences) and cleanup --
529:per Ten Pound Hammer, and his otters.
399:culture. To claim otherwise is absurd.
384:accurate claim is an accurate claim.--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
646:Knowledge (XXG):Merge and delete
372:origins is still unsourced. -
132:. The list of uses is beyond
1:
652:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
567:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
773:
736:18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
715:18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
701:12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
692:03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
675:21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
657:21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
637:04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
620:13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
601:12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
591:02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
572:21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
556:21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
539:21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
522:19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
490:20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
452:09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
414:23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
394:00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
379:16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
352:10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
322:08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
304:06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
287:03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
271:03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
249:02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
227:02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
202:02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
180:01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
145:00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
58:20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
749:Please do not modify it.
433:a search of Usenet posts
278:. OR, V, an N issues.
153:Just so everyone knows,
32:Please do not modify it.
236:if possible, otherwise
276:Denoobify mah intarweb
46:no consensus to delete
130:dictionary definition
48:, default to keep.
671:Revolving Bugbear
635:
520:
486:Revolving Bugbear
410:Revolving Bugbear
375:Revolving Bugbear
268:
225:
764:
751:
672:
655:
653:
625:
570:
568:
519:
487:
411:
376:
266:
264:
263:Ten Pound Hammer
215:
175:
166:
161:
119:
113:
95:
34:
772:
771:
767:
766:
765:
763:
762:
761:
760:
754:deletion review
747:
670:
651:
649:
566:
564:
485:
409:
374:
262:
190:JeremyMcCracken
178:
171:
164:
159:
115:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
770:
768:
759:
758:
741:
739:
738:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
677:
666:Internet slang
659:
639:
622:
605:
604:
603:
574:
558:
541:
524:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
473:
472:
471:
466:
458:
440:
400:
369:
325:
324:
306:
289:
273:
267:and his otters
251:
230:
229:
205:
204:
182:
168:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
769:
757:
755:
750:
744:
743:
742:
737:
733:
729:
725:
722:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
699:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
676:
673:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
647:
643:
640:
638:
633:
629:
623:
621:
617:
613:
610:but cleanup.
609:
606:
602:
599:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
583:
578:
575:
573:
569:
562:
559:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:
523:
518:
517:Seraphimblade
514:
510:
507:
506:
491:
488:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
465:
462:
461:
459:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
434:
430:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
412:
405:
401:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
377:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
319:
315:
310:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
282:
277:
274:
272:
265:
259:
255:
252:
250:
246:
242:
239:
235:
232:
231:
228:
223:
219:
214:
210:
207:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
181:
176:
174:
167:
162:
156:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
748:
745:
740:
723:
679:
661:
641:
607:
580:
576:
560:
543:
531:TallNapoleon
526:
508:
480:
468:
463:
444:Father Goose
428:
423:
419:
403:
386:Father Goose
365:
344:Father Goose
339:
308:
296:Father Goose
291:
280:
275:
258:Numberwanged
253:
237:
233:
208:
184:
172:
150:
128:Basically a
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
728:WhiteDragon
360:portion of
334:portion of
366:verifiable
548:Pixelface
513:neologism
437:Babylon 5
314:ErgoSum88
234:Transwiki
50:Sandstein
707:Drdisque
684:Drdisque
429:Simpsons
424:Simpsons
340:interweb
281:Celarnor
213:Blaxthos
198:contribs
173:contribs
138:Internet
122:View log
72:Interweb
64:Interweb
642:Comment
481:sources
332:WP:PSTS
292:Comment
254:Baleete
185:Keep if
165:Penguin
155:WP:TRIV
151:Comment
134:trivial
89:protect
84:history
698:Powers
598:Powers
527:Delete
509:Delete
362:WP:NOR
358:WP:SYN
336:WP:NOR
238:Delete
209:Delete
142:Powers
117:delete
93:delete
664:into
662:Merge
475:From
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
732:talk
724:Keep
711:talk
688:talk
680:Keep
632:talk
616:talk
608:Keep
587:talk
577:Keep
561:Keep
552:talk
544:Keep
535:talk
477:WP:V
448:talk
404:does
390:talk
348:talk
318:talk
309:Keep
300:talk
245:Talk
194:talk
160:Nick
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
628:CBM
582:DGG
420:are
269:•
241:BoL
196:) (
734:)
713:)
690:)
630:·
618:)
612:Q0
589:)
554:)
537:)
450:)
392:)
350:)
320:)
302:)
247:)
220:/
216:(
200:)
140:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
730:(
709:(
686:(
634:)
626:(
614:(
585:(
550:(
533:(
446:(
388:(
346:(
316:(
298:(
243:(
224:)
222:c
218:t
192:(
177:)
169:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.