Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 May 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Per consensus will also protect this from recreation. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism

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

I propose that this article be deleted. The term "carnism" occurs only in works by Melanie Joy and the sparse reporting on those works. They seem not to have gained traction, as is suggested by the references to our article, most of which are related to...well, Melanie Joy.

You'll see from the history that I did some pruning. What was cut was a list of radio interviews (I haven't listened to them, but I can guess who was being interviewed) and a list of works by, yes, Melany Joy. In other words, I also believe this article to be little more than a plug. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I didn't know that the article had been nominated (and deleted!) before, which prompted a slew of SPIs, COI editors, and possibly socks to weigh in. I hope that won't happen this time around. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consume it, marinated in deletion sauce and grilled over a verifiability fire (to borrow from the previous deletion discussion). Neologism which failed to list spam among its ingredients, ironically enough. Don't forget to add some salt (my own secret ingredient). Decades from now if it gains any real currency, it's easily de-salted. EEng (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete any good reason this hasn't been G4ed yet? Yunshui (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also favour salting given that Melanie Joy's article is still protected after several recreations. This is a wholly non-notable neologism devised by a wholly non-notable individual. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that this article is totally biased with its assertions and with the implications of said assertions (subtext of article is "a strict vegetarian diet is healthy for humans therefore anyone who chooses to eat an animal is wicked"). As the term is non-notable, there are no counter-arguments to the "theory". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't heard of carnism before, and don't really have any expertise in diet issues, though I breezed thru parts of The Omnivore's Dilemma a few years ago. If the concept/term is not independently notable, is there some article where it can be mentioned as a concept/theory propounded by Joy? There are numerous references to its existence, e.g., [1] (Spartansburg Herald, Oct 24, 2010 recommending a Joy book, "This groundbreaking work explores the psychology of carnism"); [2] (Boston Globe, January 26, 2010," To explain this widely ignored phenomenon she came up with the term "carnism,"); [3], ny times vocab blog discussing term January 2010. This makes me think the existence of it should not be wholly obliterated from wikipedia. Maybe Meatatarian, another made-up-sounding word, is the place.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could go in Wictionary, perhaps. Not here. Yunshui (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that the term, and Joy's work, can be mentioned in some meat-related article, sure. Part of the problem in Wikipedia (this is where you want to look for your trout to slap me around with) is that it is relatively easy to create new articles and our guidelines are relatively lax, which encourages broad coverage in the sense of creating multiple small articles rather than chunking information in larger articles, and I think that applies here. Not notable as a term/subject in its own right does not mean, in my opinion, that the term and the author should not show up anywhere in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Not notable, no independent sources, not Verifiable, not Encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are independent sources noting the existence of Joy's "carnism" concept, thus verifying the concept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough, Milowent, to know better than to argue WP:ITEXISTS. I notice, btw, that the Globe review you cited above explicitly states that Joy "came up with the term carnism" -- this was 2010, so there's no way around this being a neologism. EEng (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted !keep, you'll notice. The term appears to have been coined by Joy in 2001 (not 2010), so there have been references to it in other sources, in the context of discussing joy's theory.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you mean I haven't voted !keep, or did you mean I haven't !voted keep? Because it actually seemed you were arguing for keep, not !keep, though I'm puzzled by your reference to voted not !voted. Actually, you've not only not neither voted keep nor !keep, nor have you !voted neither of them nohow. EEng (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—carnism is also a minor movement in poetics, and possibly encyclopedic, e.g. here and here and a few other places. there aren't enough sources on gbooks to write an article about this, but it at least seems like something that there might be a genuine place for at some point. i agree that the current article's got to go, per above, but and if it keeps getting recreated, i see the rationale for salting. i'm just curious about how this would affect someone who wanted to write an article on the poetic movement?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'd get a message like this and would need to ask an admin to unsalt. EEng (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my worry is that there's no easy way to tell from that message that the deleted content had been about something else entirely, supposing someone wanted to write on poetics. i suppose that this isn't really the place for this discussion. thanks for your answer.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have a good point. If you click on deletion log, then from there click to the deletion discussion, you could figure out what the old topic was, but most people wouldn't know to do that. Perhaps the "protected against recreation" message can be clarified. I think it would be useful for you to raise this at WP:Pump. EEng (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think i will, thanks for the good advice!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone involved in this discussion has an opinion on this issue, i've opened a discussion at the village pump here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#protected_from_creation_template_proposed_modification.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I was going to say: "Shoot it, gut it, drain it, skin it, slice it, marinate in ..." etc., but really, someone else has already gone there.) A neologism previously deleted in good form, despite a nice SPAfest and sock-a-polooza. No notability outside of the creator's attempts to make it notable. Add some salt to improve the flavor (and decrease the likelihood of one of the sockspas recreating. (I'm totally going to start using "sockspa" in every context possible and create Sockspa. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought this was a Sock Spa. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a sock whirlpool. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (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.