Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. The excellent

WP:HEYMANN work from SandyGeorgia and Johnbod makes it clear that this goes far beyond a simple dictionary definition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bespoke

Bespoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see

WP:NAD. There is already a dictionary entry here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bespoke. There is a template for this: { {db-a5} }. Articles that have been moved to Wictionary should be deleted from Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, thanks! I can't think of any that have been anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal feelings about USER:Johnbod are irrelevant. This is a discussion of fact. Also the pages that link to this page will link to the Wiktionary page where this belongs. (unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 02:08, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, Senor Cuete. You can (in fact, should) sign your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. I haven't shared my personal feelings about Johnbod, but I have shared my knowledge of his editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course they won't link to Wiktionary! Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NINE articles in the New York Times, including, examples:
    • Safire, William (9 December 1990). "On Language; Bespokesman". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
    • Farber, Jim (8 August 2016). "Bespoke This, Bespoke That. Enough Already". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • Its history in tailoring industry: "What does 'bespoke' mean?". BBC News Magazine. 19 June 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • In marketing and tailoring: Foulkes, Nick (30 January 2009). "Top shelf: The elusive meaning of 'bespoke'". Newsweek. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • "What 'bespoke' means". Gentlemen's Quarterly. 14 March 2001. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
    Reinforcing my Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further reinforcing my keep, there is a
Former featured article at the word, Thou, showing how to turn a word into featured content. There is certainly enough sourcing available to achieve at least a GA about the usage and etymology of the word itself. The idea that a word cannot be an article is disproven by thou. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WORDISSUBJECT notability is well met, with at least seven high quality reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a notable concept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that's the first sentence. Don't most articles begin with a dictionary definition, where appropriate? Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A tic is a sudden, repetitive, nonrhythmic motor movement or vocalization involving discrete muscle groups. That's a dictionary definition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, tic has a dab page, Tic (disambiguation). And it has a wiktionary entry. Exactly the situation here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't be right - you mean rename the disam page to this< I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate What is currently at Bespoke (disambiguation) should be at this title (Bespoke simpliciter), as aside from disambiguating different bespoke-things articles this is just an overly-verbose dicdef. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd suggest people read Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, which is what this is: "A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics."
"However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page." Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

democracy or a popularity contest. This discussion will be evaluated based on the merits of the arguments, not any irrelevant comments. Please read the article and the reasons for nomination for deletion, try to comprehend them and address them in your comments. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see

WP:WORDISSUBJECT. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Misplaced_dictionary_entries
. 

"If Wiktionary doesn't already have an entry for the word or idiom (which is unlikely), it can be copied to Wiktionary using the transwiki system, by marking the article with the { {Copy to Wiktionary} } template. However, after copying, the final disposition of the article here is up to Wikipedia. If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted."

See

WP:FAILN. It should be tagged with the template { {notability} }. See Google ngrams which gives this word a score of 00006% (.0000006) for use in English. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bespoke&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbespoke%3B%2Cc0 Senor Cuete (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I was wrong about Google ngrams. "Bespoke" only currently rates as 0.000003% (.00000003) in American English - much worse that what I posted above. See: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bespoke&year_start=1900&year_end=2018&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBespoke%3B%2Cc0 Senor Cuete (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of this Google ngram talk is
original research, and I have removed the inappropriate use of it as a source from the article. There are many reliable sources that discuss how much the usage of the word has increased, and why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

According to

WP:NAD "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history" Senor Cuete (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I repeat - nothing has been "moved to Wictionary" from this page. The entry there is very different (and inferior). So the premise of the nom is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and per
WP:NAD, Bespoke is a concept. A marketing concept. A branding concept. A linguistic concept. A fashion concept. It also happens to be a word, like thou. Being nice is also a concept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • My pleasure :) The sources were easily found with a simple Google search, although I did go to Proquest at my library for one of them. I believe you have the five-fold expansion for DYK. I don't do DYK, but would be happy to see you take it there! I do hope the thou example will help demonstrate that we can take articles about words to the GA or FA level. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Septrillion (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; informative and educational in a way a dictionary entry will never be. Outriggr (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text about the history of custom clothing is a red herring. The links added are all to articles about the word so this is just a bigger dictionary definition that still violates
    WP:NAD and other standards of Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Editors are only allowed to !vote once. A nomination counts as a delete !vote. Septrillion (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Septrillion I have unbolded the delete in your small text above, as that also counted as a double !vote with the stats tool, and put you as a double !vote with a delete :) Without commenting on whether you should strike Senor Cuete's duplicate !vote, I have also unstruck his commentary, as that is apart from the !vote. I hope you don't mind these corrections. The AFD stats are straightened out now, with no duplicates found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Senor Cuete is also the nominator! Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Johnbod is also the article creator! Senor Cuete (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Senor Cuete, you seem confused again about the reason for the post. (Similar to your confusion about why my first post indicated that I came to the AFD because I have Johnbod's talk page watchlisted: you described it as my "personal feelings about Johnbod", when providing that information has to do with giving the closing admin information relative to potential canvassing, which you did, and Johnbod did not.) The AFD nominator vote is assumed. See the stats, which detect Senor Cuete's duplicate vote. Please stop personalizing, and assume AGF if you don't yet understand these processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't canvass. I notified the people who commented on the article's talk page. As far as personalizing this, you are the one that has done it. "I know you are but what am I?" -
Peewee Herman. Also only ONE space goes after a period. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As User:Steve pointed out above, you only notified those who had supported your view, and not Andy Dingley, who did not. See Wikipedia:Canvassing "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was Steve who notified me, not Senor Cuete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andy Dingley, sorry, my mistake. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article goes far beyond a dicdef, and has lots of sources. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is not a dictionary. Well sourced article with established info. Per Bearian. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bespoke&oldid=839090063"