Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starkish

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 delete, noting that AFD is not a vote. Wickethewok 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starkish

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Attempting to create a neologism Piuro 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with "Piuro". I don't believe they are attempting to create a neologism, as this word is in current popular use in New Zealand. This page is merely documenting that this has popular word has arisen in New Zealand culture. Newspapers, magazines, bands are using the word, and I can even help out here and put on links to these reliable sources as long as this page does not get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.44.80 (talk • contribs)

Delete A dicdef, surely. Etymology I would suggest is from adding -ish to the adjective stark. Emeraude 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: studied emerging sub-cultures, it seems obvious that this word is a venacular description of a sub-cultural movement, a way that a certain group of people have started to identify their approach to aesthetics in their urban frameworks. The word itself represents a far greater movement, much like 'maxamalism', 'emo', etc. Sets 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) — Sets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: This article could be an extension of this [1]. DCEdwards1966 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regards to this article [2] This is simply some PR campaign trying to hijack the word for their own purposes. It is appropriation of emerging sub-cultures for their own benefit. The word has not been created by them.Innovateur 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) — Innovateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Wildthing61476 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, as someone working in the visual arts industry in New Zealand, I've never heard the word used. Looks like a clear neologism to me. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable neologism, dictionary definition. This appears to be just a descriptive word that some PR people are push rather than an actual movement or style linking different artists. - SimonLyall 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the NZ Herald article makes it clear that this is an unencyclopedic PR gimmick. No verifiable sources demonstrating that it is in current use as a description for a movement. Ziggurat 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia exists "to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." [3] While obscure, the burgeoning sub-cultural 'Starkish' movement deserves notation, even though it may be in its infancy within Australasia. Also, my account is not a "single purpose account," I believe that you should only contribute to a website such as Wikipedia only if you have something worthy to share with the world. This is the first worthy (and new) contribution that I have come across, which is why this is my first page contribution on Wikipedia. I'd also like to quote Wikipedias own 'guide to deletion'. It states "before nominating and account for AFD please first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" [4]. While some Wikipedians claim this is an "attempt to create a neologism", I believe this page be kept, as a reference point for the growth of the movement within our pop-cultural sphere. Innovateur 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Innovateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In general, that guideline makes sense - but when the person making the "I've never heard of it" comment is someone with intimate knowledge of the field in question (which as an artist, performer, and art critic in New Zealand, I do have), it makes a lot of sense to override that guideline (which, you will note is a guide, not a policy). Though I hesitate to call myself an expert in the firld, I am a published author within it with an everyday working knowledge of it. if I haven't heard of it, then it is almost certain to be at best a neologism, and at worst a hoax. And even if it were an established word usage, its place would be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Grutness...wha?

Keep per Innovatuer. I'm new to this world too. Innovateur makes some good points, and agree it should be kept. JonPok 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — JonPok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Would just like to add this: Click on film review of "Junebug" on this page.[5] Is a direct example of a reliable source using the in its context. In regards to the NZ Herald article, please see my 20:54, 27 October 2006 comment. Innovateur 05:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:NEO, using the word is not enough to mark it as a source. It has to explain it. The article above is a source, but the contents of that source only provide a dictionary definition of the word "starkish", leading me to believe the article itself is original research. Please find a source that explains the development of this word and the movement. Otherwise, delete. ColourBurst 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is about a neologism, and neologisms are not encyclopedic. There could possibly be an article on the marketing campaign which is what this really is, but I suspect that would fail to survive an AfD either, since it isn't a particularly notable marketing campaign.-gadfium 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jacquie Brown said "starkish" on Campbell Live tonight, or more precisely "Starkish it isn't". Not sure if it's NZ Herald-related or genuine though - Gobeirne 06:28, 31 October 2006 (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.