Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanker

Add links
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 was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep since that is clearly the overall sentiment of the discussion, with the caveat that most (not all) of the Keep supporters did not engage with the main argument of the nomination. But while I am willing in some cases to close a discussion against the majority when there is a strong policy argument from the minority, those cases typically aren't this lopsided and usually involve brighter lines such as BLP policy. In this case the only realistic alternative would be "no consensus", which would probably lead to another DRV or worse a speedy renomination, neither of which would be a productive exercise. So I'm giving the majority its win, but with an advisory that if a year or more from now the only sources about it are still from a narrow timeframe, there will be no reason to take the result of this discussion as a precedent. RL0919 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clanker

[edit]


[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Clanker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My edit noting the page's notability issues was reverted claiming the page is notable. I believe the term clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS as all the coverage was from some days to a week ago suddenly seizing on the neologism. While the term was used in the Star Wars series a long time before that, it was only a fan thing equivalent to "frack" from Battlestar Galactica and hardly noted by itself. It will take much longer to determine whether or not the word is independently notable, though it could be mentioned in Droid (Star Wars) where it originally redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This word has gained a lot of coverage in the last 8 days. If it had this many sources over a more prolonged period I would think it notable. But all of the articles are very similar, covering some recent videos, memes and a comment by a senator. If the coverage continues then this should be an article but with only 8 days' of coverage I feel it fails on WP:SUSTAINED (Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability). I'm hesitating to !vote to delete or keep, as we don't yet know if it will have long-term notability. I think the best solution would be for it to spend a few months as a draft. If people are still writing about it in reliable sources in December then it's notable, if it's all-but forgotten about by then, it can be deleted. Mgp28 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is, of course, in a very precarious space, covering emerging vocabulary which itself concerns an already emerging field. Whilst Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, this term is unique in its implications in contemporary discourse, and the article itself contains reasonable evidence that the term is gaining traction and will become increasingly relevant. If the word is quickly forgotten, then deletion will be warranted. However, in the short-medium term, this article has clear relevancy, whilst (for the time being, perhaps) lacking coverage. Therefore, for the meantime at least, I judge that a cautionary label such as 'stub' would be preferable to outright deletion or draftification. Djack1770 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very reliable sources exist 2600:4040:2821:D500:15ED:D8F8:B2D5:D588 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article creator, the sources and article clearly establish that the term has already become used far outside the Star Wars fandom with Senator Ruben Gallego including it in political messaging. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that policy includes WP:NEO, which says that "to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term," which this article satisfies. The neologism policy also says that "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles," and since the term has taken on a popular meaning outside the Star Wars context with linguistic and economic analysis of that new usage, a distinct article from Droid (Star Wars) is more appropriate. In April 2025, I opened WP:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot, which agreed to keep an Internet meme article using far lower-quality sources than Gizmodo, NPR, and NBC News, all of which were published within a month of the article's creation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, WP:NSUSTAINED's "See also" wikilinks to Wikipedia:Notability#Events and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event shows how this guideline is primarily meant to prevent articles on events or people with one temporary, yet newsworthy aspect. For an article on a word, even if usage of "clanker" declines, this set of in-depth analysis from high-quality sources will make the article a worthwhile resource on early responses to artificial intelligence. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italian brainrot wasn't kept per se, you just withdrew it. There's a possibility the pendulum would have swung back towards delete if more people were allowed to weigh in, especially if all the sources were from a very close together range of dates. It's a common error to assume that early results in a discussion mean it's already over, but AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE.
SUSTAINED applies to most articles, not just people and events. It simply says topics for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I am getting at is that the typical use of WP:NSUSTAINED is against a BLP after ten "Dog saves boy who fell into a well" articles are written because with limited info, all sources would present the same story without a WP:credible claim of significance. As I expressed below, the sources here offer in-depth analysis from varied angles. Thus, reassessing whether coverage dies in a few weeks seems better than draftifying a well-sourced page simply because the sources are all new. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was never arguing GNG is failed by the article, only that SUSTAINED is failed due to the incredibly short timespan of the sources, making it akin to news. If you have a counterargument for that specifically, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point that ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and I are making is that just as we got a July 2025 Central Texas floods article on the first day of the event occurring because WP:LASTING tells us that "it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable," we have multiple high-quality sources here analyzing the word in different ways. Axios and Rolling Stone analyze the economics of AI-induced job losses. Gizmodo discusses the history of robot discrimination in Star Wars suggesting how present-day disdain for robots may evolve. NPR interviewed a linguist and think tank director.
"Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" in the sense that we wait for the secondary sources to appear, but now we have many. As Rosguill expresses below, WP:NSUSTAINED does not mean we have to wait four months (per Mgp28) after initial publication to confirm lasting notability before article creation. In this case, waiting a few weeks to re-assess whether this article still deserves inclusion seems more appropriate. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most massive news events get articles even though it is breaking the rules, simply because there is a critical mass of inexperienced users who are not aware of the rules and rush to put the article there. It is virtually impossible to stop it, because SUSTAINED is a more obscure policy than notability. Sometimes that leads to deletion later on if it doesn't stay in the news, although a lot of times it is given the benefit of the doubt that it will have lasting coverage simply due to its outsized effect. Still in this case it is highly unclear whether it will remain a lasting word in the lexicon akin to "AI slop" or it is just a fad. (And if you ask me, is a little bit too early given we have no droids yet...) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with July 2025 Central Texas floods as our example, EF5 is an experienced editor prolific in their quality article writing. I dispute that they were unaware of or intentionally breaking the rules of WP:NSUSTAINED based on my above reasoning that this guideline does not instruct us to delay article creation when significant coverage exists to establish notability, simply because that coverage is new. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It was more of an WP:IAR publish, as it was very obvious it was going to be a devastating event from the get-go. EF5 12:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on anyone's intentions or thought process on creating these articles, but this comparison itself is absurd. Are we really trying to compare an article about a major natural disaster with...a slang word used in Star Wars...? It's hard for me to think of a more apples and oranges comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant to express that WP:NSUSTAINED doesn't even preclude an article on ongoing natural disasters, not that the existence of July 2025 Central Texas floods is a precise benchmark for our decision-making here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu - I was asked to comment by ViridianPenguin on the basis of my participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot. I feel like I can see both sides of this discussion? I think that delete !voters are technically correct in pointing to WP:SUSTAINED . That having been said, I'm not sure we really have any set standard of what time frame we assess SUSTAINED at for a new word? Does it move the needle at all that there's also some coverage in journalistic sources from a few weeks ago too ([1], [2])? I think that the issues of it feeling like the article is high on filler could be addressed by splitting off a very short lead, then restructuring the body to be more chronological, and cutting stuff that wouldn't pass the WP:TENYEARTEST like that a Senator used it in a tweet. signed, Rosguill talk 03:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with the proposed reorganization but will wait for others to chime in on whether it is preferable before implementation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SUSTAINED or WP:TOOSOON are not applicable in a topic too new to have such sustained coverage--it's a reverse CRYSTAL violation to assume that coverage will not be sustained. If the GNG is met, and it appears to be here, then an argument for deletion per NOPAGE, since NTEMP would apply indefinitely, would be appropriate after six months of no further coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I assumed it wouldn't have sustained coverage, just that it is not possible to know. In my nomination: "It will take much longer to determine whether or not the word is independently notable". Something whose notability is unknown should not remain in article space, although draftification and reinstatement months later is certainly possible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It’s never too soon for an article. EF5 12:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lack of sustained coverage has not been demonstrated. Einsof (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sources that show notability clearly exist. Also per Wikipedia:Not too soon. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Keep: I think that we should just wait a little bit to see if any more sources will pop up discussing this topic, so that there'd at least be some sustained coverage. Keep in mind that most of the sources are from the past week. So, it's technically an evolving story. The sourcing looks okay good to me and hopefully we'll get more coverage in the coming days. I don't know how long it will take, but generally, such articles on popular culture topics will basically only (or mostly) get coverage in a short period and nothing beyond that. So, we should not consider sustained coverage to range for months in the future. We should instead look for sustained coverage for the next couple of weeks. I could reconsider my vote if more sources show up in the coming days. The AfD was just listed yesterday and it is very likely that this discussion will be relisted, so by then, we'll 100% know whether the topic passes sustained coverage. I do not think that WP:TOOSOON could apply here because there's clearly coverage in reliable sources which show that the topic is most likely notable. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has extensive coverage from a plethora of reliable sources. Looking like a case of WP:TOOSOONDEL. jolielover♥talk 02:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage shown goes beyond simple reporting and spans over a decent period, though small, shows sustained coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it represents an ongoing battle against the domination of artificial intelligence. Keep. Jayson (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Re-affirming previous users; seems as though there is enough notability for this to be kept, the article just needs more expansion. SouthernDude297 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Most of the keep comments so far have been pure votes or not actually addressing the argument made in the deletion nomination. The argument is not that it fails GNG or has insufficient sources, but that it fails the specific policy WP:SUSTAINED. People have yet to demonstrate that there is a source talking about its use as an anti-AI term akin to "AI slop" prior to a week or two ago. I am mostly familiar with the term "clunker" rather than "clanker" to refer to old cars, but this article is clearly about the anti AI term rather than a previous incarnation of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that argument has been addressed. WP:TOOSOONDEL was invoked because it's too soon to predict if it will not have sustained coverage. Perhaps in a month or two we can actually assess that, but as of right now, there is no way to know if coverage will or will not be sustained. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan that while not every keep response has been a direct response to the WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS claims raised in the nomination, multiple keep responses have raised rebuttals via WP:TOOSOONDEL and WP:NOTTOOSOON. No one is obligated to satisfy you in rebutting that articles on this broader use of "clanker" are very recent if the keep responses take the position that it is fine for this to be the case as long as we do not subsequently see a drop off in coverage. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The last talk discussion [3] on WP:SUSTAINED suggests that the common understanding was that there is a presumption of notability for temporary events, and that they can be AFD'd once it's been established that they are not sustained. Would suggest that the essay WP:TOOSOON is definitely not consensus, and people should have a look at WP:NOTTOOSOON and WP:TOOSOONDEL. Possibly that section needs rewriting to make it more clear that we can tolerate articles with a brief flurry of secondary reliable sources until it is established that they are not sustained, because deleting this article suggests that the wait till it's not notable of WP:NTEMP doesn't apply in cases around the sustained coverage policy, which doesn't make much sense to me. Sam0fc (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly that section needs rewriting to make it more clear that we can tolerate articles with a brief flurry of secondary reliable sources
    That's doubtful to happen because if that was really the case, then Wikipedia would all but become a news website. WikiNews is still there for people who want to write news articles about things like this. Wikipedia is not news and is only concerned with things that are historically notable. While there is some tolerance for major world events, I would not call a new slang word a "major world event". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since its origins in 2005, this is exactly the sort of article which is both interesting and important and notable enough to be kept, but that otherwise tends to get nominated for an AfD for any number of silly reasons. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term has extensively covered in significant sources and it can be expanded instead. Also passes WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was unsure at first, but there is a serious amount of coverage in here and a United States Senator using this term is a major sign that it's moved to the mainstream. Dflovett (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IP, your statement about it only being used by "terminally online children" is not very accurate; the mere fact that a US Senator is using it (as seen in this news article) is enough IMO to warrant inclusion. The topic clearly has enough SIGCOV to have its own article. Please see WP:TOOSOONDEL. Honestly I think that WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. The point of WP:SUSTAINED is that articles with no sustained coverage over a long period of time should be considered for deletion, which is not the case here given the article I cited is only a few days old. Gommeh 🎮 20:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 13. An administrator may reclose the AfD after the required seven (total) days of discussion have elapsed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clanker will be used as a slur for robots for who-knows-how-long. In 20-30 years it will probably be one of the most offensive words to exist. Theobegley2013 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty bold statement, we have no real way of predicting what will happen to the word "clanker" in the future Thegoofhere (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that as an article that this could easily fall within the same sort of category as the Hallucination (artificial intelligence) article, as both are neologisms related to AI. Despite being a new "fad" term I could see its use continuing well into the future. Preinstallable (t/c) 10:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of sources and this word has gone beyond just being a typical slang term and has become popular in the gen AI debate. It also has widespread usage, including by a US senator.
Shocksingularity (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked up the term as my son used it and I found it an article in a UK newspaper. The term has moved into being cited in mainstream media, and will likely end up in UK dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Wikipedia should reflect such usage beyond the fan articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.45.36 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clanker&oldid=1310094749"