Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I could care less
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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef. Delete. r3m0t talk 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it fails totally to mention that in the UK we still DO say "I couldn't care less" for one thing. Jcuk 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant to the question we are evaluating, namely whether this title is inherantly inconsistent with an encyclopedic article.
--Jerzy•t 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant to the question we are evaluating, namely whether this title is inherantly inconsistent with an encyclopedic article.
- Del. While this is more than a dicdef, it is hard to believe that it is more than original research at this point, nor that established knowledge could bear it out. IMO, this reeks sheer speculation about linguistic change, and while i can imagine verification that would chg my position, i am quite comfortable deleting based on my sense, until we see it, that we won't see it.
--Jerzy•t 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. This article needs work (sources!), but it's a topic that has attracted quite a bit of attention by linguists of late, and is being seriously studied. For a (light) introduction, see here: Lots of linguists caring more about caring less Lukas 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my vote to delete. Part of the text is actually copyvio from here [1]. A pity, really. Now, could I care less? or more? Lukas 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The content might be useful as a liguistics example, but it does not belong in a separate article. Arcturus 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the first place, I am Mike Delizia. The text from my Stumpers e-mail message is original with me, and first appeared on a BBS called Grex ten years ago. There is absolutely no copyright violation here. As to sources, the process I describe is one that I witnessed myself, as it was happening. It is not my opinion or speculation, it is simple observation. (It took place over the course of a generation -- that is, the people saying "I could care less" in 1970 were the children of the people who were saying "I couldn't care less" in 1950. The older [i.e., my] generation continued, and in many cases continues, to say "I couldn't care less.") To my knowledge, there are no sources and can be no sources for this information apart from the observations of people present at the creation. In any case, my description of the change is original with me and is absolutely accurate. Mystery solved. I would love to see it remain here on Wikipedia. If you want to cite my Stumpers e-mail or my Grex post as "sources," you have my permission to do so. No hard feelings, whatever you guys decide to do. Btw, if you want to see my original posting on Grex, go to http://www.cyberspace.org/. Find your way to the Grex conferencing system on that site, then go to the Language conference, then read Item 72. My post is Response #25, dated March 22, 1995. All the best, golaud ([email protected]).
- Whatever. Lukas points out that my article now falls under "original research," which is not allowed on Wikipedia. There was no research involved, just paying attention and reporting, but I do understand the problem: I'm not a professional linguist; why would anyone take my word for this? But would it be possible for somebody else (Lukas?) to write the article using my e-mail to Stumpers as a source? What I'm wondering is, how the heck do you get something like this out there if not on Wikipedia? --Golaud 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the OR prohibition is that we record accepted knowledge, and what constitutes "research" is not important. Questions like "how the heck do you get something like this out there if not on Wikipedia?" are handled at WP:RD, but have you participated in the forum Lukas mentioned? Those folks are likely to have indexed recordings and transcriptions of casual conversations dating back at least to the 1950s, much more persuasive than your informal memory of the sequence -- even tho your insight into this (IMO plausible) process may be the sort of germ of academically publishable study that some PhD candidate is waiting for the chance to sharpen her linguistic tools on; you may eventually be the subject of a footnote thanking you by name for your role as an "observant amateur-linguist informant".
--Jerzy•t 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I could handle being a footnote, I think. (I would've entered all of this anonymously, in fact, as I've entered a number of titles and edits on Wikipedia, only Wikipedia made me create an account this time.) Anyway, the thought of researching "indexed recordings and transcriptions of casual conversations dating back at least to the 1950s" gives me a migraine, so somebody else will have to do that part. In the meanwhile, why can't my entry stay here as a goad to serious scholars willing to undertake the drudgery? The sequence I've outlined is indisputably true, and I would think anyone with an ear for language will recognize that fact. I am a living relic of that era, and as good a source as any transcriptions you're likely to find. (Harrumph.) Still, as I said earlier, no hard feelings if you decide otherwise. --Golaud 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the OR prohibition is that we record accepted knowledge, and what constitutes "research" is not important. Questions like "how the heck do you get something like this out there if not on Wikipedia?" are handled at WP:RD, but have you participated in the forum Lukas mentioned? Those folks are likely to have indexed recordings and transcriptions of casual conversations dating back at least to the 1950s, much more persuasive than your informal memory of the sequence -- even tho your insight into this (IMO plausible) process may be the sort of germ of academically publishable study that some PhD candidate is waiting for the chance to sharpen her linguistic tools on; you may eventually be the subject of a footnote thanking you by name for your role as an "observant amateur-linguist informant".
- 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.