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 sorry not convinced by the keep votes, I heard of it, isn't a valid reason to keep. And the article has issues with WP:V and WP:RS like Tony saysJaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pataphor[edit]

Pataphor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. -- Y not? 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I first heard about pataphors (or pataforas in Spanish) from my aunt, a professor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln who gave a lecture on them after the article came out in Chile, which she read and included in a lecture. While I do not claim to be an expert on notability, this seems notable to me, and to others. Thank you -- Thibau1 — Thibau1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete for now. The term is quite new and hasn't seen widespread usage yet. The only reference I've found to any reliable publication is the recent Chilean article mentioned above and linked from the article. While the "pataphysics" it is based on seems to be quite notable, pataphor isn't yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 July 2007.
• Keep per Thibau1 Giggy _U^CP 00:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO - per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". Blogs/personal websites/youtube etc are not reliable sources and I cant read that spanish paper Corpx 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are indeed books and papers about the term. Pablo Lopez "Closet 'Pataphysics" in Ellipsis uses and invents the term. Then there is Pablo Lopez "Pataphors", University of Hollins (1994) which is solely about the term. The unnamed article in the Cahiers du Collège de Pataphysique n°22 (December 2005) explains the term by photographic means. The 2007 article "Patafísica y patáforas" by Luis Casado in the newspaper Granvalparaiso (English computer translation) uses and explains the term, referencing the books by Lopez. I think that is at least three, perhaps four. The article also mentions Pablo Lopez ""Pataphor Test", though i can't find any reference for that. And if that wasn't enough, there is even a [myspace-page] about it. see! -- ExpImp^talkcon 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the volume of usage of this term makes quite a compelling case for its continuation. It's true that the article in Spanish, while compelling, is not in English. However, Googling around I see it mentioned in numerous places, including twice included in poetry and poetry contests, finding, for example, this: http://www.humblevoice.com/profile/components/word_gallery/word.php?iid=2246 and http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showpost.php?p=369542&postcount=2. And many other places. Also note: http://www.illposed.com/philosophy/pataprogramming.html which references the Wikipedia entry and mentions an application to computing. This article on Wikipedia, which has been here for a couple of years at least, describes something that exists in the world, to the extent that it has entries in other languages. Why shouldn't there be an entry in English? drhtl

Comment Isn't this essentially a dictionary definition? --Malcolmxl5 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. I'd give it a little time - it's sourced, if weakly so, and it's certainly a neat concept, but time will tell if it makes it into mainstream awareness as a word. This is a good example of the value of Wikipedia (even of its Afds) - I might never have heard of this without the AfD, and so one of our goals has been met in a small way: knowledge has been increased. I respectfully ask the nominator, why not? Tvoz |talk 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This is allegedly a new literary device, and for these things we have a whole body of academics who would have written mucho scholarly articles about it if it were real. Until they teach it in Advanced Creative Writing at NYU, I feel that it doesn't belong here - irrespective of whether it's been mentioned in two poems and one Spanish magazine. -- Y not? 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok.... maybe it isn't sourced widely enough yet, but it gets far more Google hits than protologism which Wikidictionary accepted. If you're serious about deleting it, I'd suggest having the article merge into metaphor, with a explanation of pataphor - rather than completely wiping it out and losing the admittedly rudimentary information that's there. (BTW, some people can read Spanish, so it might be good to have the Chilean source article translated - maybe it's more impressive than we assume.) I guess I'm taking an eventualist position on this. I disagree, moreover, with the idea that a concept has to be taught in a college class, even one on Creative Writing, before we accept it - from my experience college professors can be the last ones standing before revising their model and we can do better than that. And I ask, is there some kind of harm being caused by this article remaining in the encyclopedia that I'm missing? Tvoz |talk 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mmmm... you should see WP:NOHARM :) -- Y not? 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Y.... you know that WP:NOHARM is an essay, not a do-or-die policy. What can I say? I don't agree with it across the board. Tvoz |talk 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ye, I know... -- Y not? 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meanwhile, it's being used to justify the notability of Paul Avion, another article on AfD. This is called a walled garden, ladies and gentlemen. -- Y not? 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Also, as the article on Paul Avion appears to pass WP:Music ("Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"), the article on Paul Avion shows notability, which boosts notability for pataphor by association. Factor in other arguments made above -- a mention in a Chilean newspaper and a other sources, to omit it from Wikipedia strikes me as a decrease in information from Wikipedia without a compelling cause. Jchristie7
• Delete as a neologism. Merriam-Webster doesn't have it, Oxford English doesn't have it, and a look through the first hundred or so Google hits gives a repeated appearance of phrases along the lines of "looked it up in Wikipedia..." which suggests that there are no reliable sources - other than those that can be tracked right back to here. One single mention in a Chilean newspaper doesn't equate to multiple, non-trivial references. I fully agree with Y, above - when it gets to the point where it's being used in actual reference material, college courses, etc., then I'll give it a bit more credence. Right now, it has no traction, and cannot be verified. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see my comment above at Corpx. Thanks. -- ExpImp^talkcon 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but needs better sourcing. Bearian 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per drhtl and Tvoz. Also, it is one of the greatest pages in wikipedia, at least in my opinion. If it should be deleted nonetheless, add the content as a pragraph to Metaphor.--ExplicitImplicity 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've actually heard this term used in discussions of M theory and string theory. Not all academic or specialty journals keep archives online, so a Google search may not necessarily turn up all sources verbatim. It seems you have sufficient sources and online (i.e., Google-able) data available to support its continuation. As most people seem to point out on this thread, the case for deleting it seems rather weak (i.e., demanding a greater burden of proof). Danthewhale 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.