Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAS syndrome

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, per complete absence of delete preferences expressed. No delete !votes were made, indicating that there is no consensus to delete the article. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh, who is not an administrator. 06:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAS syndrome

I'm finding no reliable sources here, just Usenet posts and blogs and Urban Dictionary. Seems to utterly, completely, and totally fail each and every single one of the rules established in the notability guidelines for neologisms that are new. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been mentioned in New Scientist's Feedback section several times, and this is mentioned in the article, we just don't have an exact date to cite it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one and another. And really, how can you delete the best vandalism ever? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete that vandalism. Oh, and good finds too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page would remove the vandalism page history, in essence removing that vandalism from the world, apart from the 1600 admins here. And it wasn;t hard, I just did a google search for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did too, but all I came up with was Urban Dictionary and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone comes up with an RS source (ha!). That tag's only been there since November. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha, just noticed the slight modification to the deletion template. Nice work. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Per WP:NEO, neologisms should only be avoided because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people - this particular one seems to have a pretty well-defined meaning. It appears, however, to fail the #Reliable sources for neologisms section of WP:NEO. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RAS syndrome is well known and frequent. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of unsourced stuff that might be original research in the "Reasons for use" section, but overall the topic does seem to be notable with some decent sources. Needs cleanup but seems to be a worthy encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the New Scientist articles aren't very substantial in their coverage, so I'm still not convinced that this meets WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - despite being the creator of this article, I'm ambivalent as to whether it should stay or not: I think I created it mainly because it was being linked in other articles. However, whether or not the term is a neologism, the phenomenon is fairly widely recognised, and seems to me to be worthy of discussion in terms of its linguistic origins and effects. If that is better covered under a different title, or as part of a broader subject, I'd suggest a merge-and-redirect approach. - IMSoP (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (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.