Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic satiation
From 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 of the debate was Delete. Lots of cites but most are the author's own work, and the rest do not cite the specific usage of the term from a passage, they're just a bibliography. Non notable neologism. --++Lar: t/c 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semantic satiation
An article on a term coined by Leon James, added by User:Leonj (whose edit history consists mainly of adding links to his own sites). Looks like vanity and original research. There is a dictdef in here, but it's already at Wiktionary according to the links section. There are around 640 ghits for this term, of which most are (a) WP / Wiktionary and mirrors; (b) blogs / personal pages; (c) James' own sites. I see little evidence that this is a widespread term outside of the creator and his immediate circle, but it might just be such a specialist field that only a few experts would use it anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn neologism NawlinWiki 13:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. OR/vain. Fan1967 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a neologism.--Isotope23 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There are now additional references and more will be added. The reason there are so many references to Leon Jakobovits is because he was th eonly one for 30 years to publish a series of studies on this phenomenon. Subsequently, other people added new research. There are dozens of such articles still to be added. There is even a new area of application in commnications and advertising. This article should be taken off the to be deleted list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leonj (talk • contribs) 04:47, June 7, 2006.
-
- Comment If you want to make your case that the term is notable, lose all the citations from Jakobovits and find more people who cite his work. There seem to be precious few of them. Fan1967 20:21, 11 June 2006 (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.
