Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framis

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 no consensus to delete. Seems as though the outcome is to transwiki; I've tagged the article as such. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Framis

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

Non-notable neogolism, possible WP:HOAX, Google turns up no reference of the word other than the personal website, unable to verify the other references listed. Leuko 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not a hoax. Neither is it a neologism. The Oxford Companion to the English Language, p. 415 and p. 321 should be sufficient citations to keep this article. See other references and comparisons/contrast just added to the article. Gekritzl 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: That is if the inclusion of this word can be verified. Since it is nowhere on the internet, sorry if I am skeptical. Does anyone else have a copy of this book that can verify? Leuko 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment: Thank you for your input, honestly. Regarding "Nowhere else on the internet" - try Google, and the external links. Hoping someone has The Oxford Companion to the English Language, it's by my side right now. Great book! (P.S. Wow, you are right, very few hits on the internet. I could scan the page in Oxford Companion and email it to you...) (PPS I just read Leuko's Wiki page, you're very serious about Wiki and that's great! Please check out my history of contributions and my (just created) Gekritzl author summary. I'm serious about accuracy and expanding Wikipedia too.Gekritzl 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thanks for the offer, but I would prefer an independent editor to verify it. The external links provided are not WP:RS, and are essentially self-published sources. Thank you for the compliment, and yes, I do have high standards for articles in WP, so I hope you do not take offense to my nomination of an article which is unverified. Your contributions are positive from what I saw, but the only thing nagging me is that the only mention that I could find on the internet is from the Urban Dictionary (not a WP:RS either), but it lists a completely different definition. Leuko 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Printed sources are every bit as appropriate as online ones; what you can do if you doubt them, is ask the ed. to put in a quotation of the essential part. WP is not an encyclopedia of the web, but a general encyclopedia.DGG 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but simply claiming something in a printed source is not the same thing as it being attributed/verified. I didn't have access to the book, so I asked for an independent editor to verify the claim. Please see Free State of Montzoar Palatinate for an article which claims to have printed sources, but in fact, they are fake. Without independent verification, how can an editor not be sure that this is not the case here? Leuko 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By going to their own library. it is a very commonly held book. The situation is different with unusual material. DGG 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Author recommends closing this discussion and keeping the article based on added refereed citations, references, and Wiki policy and procedure. Article was created one evening, questioned that evening, citations added that evening, changed from stub to completed article same evening. Gekritzl 03:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Please see WP:DP. 1) You can only "vote" once (though AfD's are not votes), and 2) you can't "recommend closing the dicussion" early. Leuko 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Ah, thank you. On our NGIN system at NASA we keep ongoing CM discussions, and I (erroneously) likened Wiki's system to such an iterative procedure/dialogue. Will gladly abide by Wiki procedures. Article has been significantly improved since submission a couple of hours ago. Perhaps I'll scan the Oxford Companion page in and just post it to the internet (might be a good way to validate the citation) and if I do, I will definitely cite the source due to copyright restrictions. Gekritzl 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Oxford Companion mention is enough for me. I know this borders on OR, but I've used the word before for years. Example: The radio station where I worked went off the air during my on-air shift. The manager calls and asks, "What's wrong?" I reply, "The framis regulator is broken. Get the engineer in here." (Translation: I have no idea why we're off the air.) Realkyhick 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Transwiki to wiktionary? Gekedo 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki as this is not very notable but it is a nonsense word, perhaps becoming obsolete. It was popularized in the 1950s by "double-talk specialist" comedian Al Kelly, note the redlink, or I would vote "merge". He's mentioned in Friars Club and Milton Berle, for some confirmation of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm at the public library now and have the 1992 version of Oxford Companion. Framis shows up on page 415. Recommend keeping this article based on Wiki's Missing Encyclopedic Articles project philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.116.204 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Not that one would have any reason to doubt an anonymous IP address, but... Leuko 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: There seems to be some use of the word as an alternate to "thingamajig" as in Urban Dictionary and also on this site: http://www.unc.edu/~ptw/techisms.htm -- a trip to a university library may be in order. Gekritzl 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to double talk. That's the name of the entry in the Oxford Companion; "framis" is simply mentioned as a synonym. —Celithemis 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

References

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Sr13 (T|C) 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, as this is a dictionary definition which doesn't really provide a context for the notability of the word. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:29, 9 April 2007 (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.