Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clientitus

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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clientitus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all, this is a dictionary entry. Second of all, it appears to be misspelled (don't most diseases end in "-itis", not "-itus")? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a neologism, but one that has found its way into the literature. It should be spelled clientitis. I'd like to see how John Bolton spelled it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep neologism, but seems to have some coverage already. I'm assuming it's clientitus, as clientitis is the often-contagious condition of "irritated customer", known to anyone in a service industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good information, and well-written, on an interesting and probably important topic. However WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article starts out: "Clientitus is a term..." The material should be merged somewhere to an article on psychology or one on problems in the State Department or somewhere else. WP should not have articles on "terms" or "neologisms" by our own policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything began as a neologism once. WP policies are to avoid using them in descriptions of others, and to avoid articles on them until they have garnered 3rd party coverage to achieve WP:N. It would appear that this one has reached that stage. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that by "not a dictionary" WP should not have articles on words, new or old. Also the article is very well written and informative. The information should be merged to an article on a topic. I'm just not sure what topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of WP is "articles about words", from a simple view of the title at least. The difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia isn't that one excludes "articles about words" on that basis, but rather that one is about words and the other is about the concept behind them. If clientitus has any notability such to even bear consideration here, then it's on the basis of its backstory, not merely it's simple definition today. It's quite possible that this could be justified for inclusion at WP on that basis, but not for Wikitionary. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DICDEF. See if Wiktionary wants it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually get argumentative over these things, but this is not a dictionary definition. 'Clientitus' is a made-up word. It is grammatically incorrect. It exists because, according to John Bolton, the US State Department started using the term and it has spread to mainstream literature. Compare Womyn or Vorpal sword. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All words are "made-up". And yes, this is a dictionary definition. The article explains what the word means and then offers examples to illustrate usage. That's what a dictionary does. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICTIONARY, and possibly WP:No original research. The article suggests that the term could be applied to examples such as those cited as references, but the second item uses it more or less in passing. (I am not able to access the first item cited.) Even assuming that OR doesn't apply, articles should describe topics rather than terms, as Kitfoxxe suggests. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a point of interest, the relevant section of WP:NOTDIC is currently under dispute. Perhaps this should be put on hold until that is resolved? Sithman VIII !! 05:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have moved the article to clientitis, where it very obviously belongs. With the correct spelling this "neologism" has appeared in Mother Jones (magazine) in 1986, and in numerous books since 1990. The books define the term and describe the relevance of the phenomenon it describes. I am sure with some digging an entire article just about this problem can be found. Hans Adler 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Baker's "The Tortilla Curtain" (n.d.), which is currently cited as a reference, uses the spelling clientitus. Cnilep (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To quote that article: "George Baker [...] is directs Mexico Transnational Strategies". I don't think we need to follow the only source that misspells the word. Hans Adler 07:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, but Baker should be replaced with a reliable source if the article is to stay. Cnilep (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. The term has been in use for years and the phenomenon is something the State Department has attempted to combat as well as a common accusation leveled by critics. Possibly there isn't enough published content about clientitis to write a Wikipedia article, but no one should be voting against this on the basis that it's a neologism or original research.Prezbo (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there may not be enough material for an entire article. But the material that does exist is legitimate, so the question is whether to merge, and where, not whether to delete. Hans Adler 07:05, 24 July 2010 (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.