Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wargasm (Word)

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. Sandstein 08:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wargasm (word)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The user has fails WP:N with respect the concept of "wargasm" because the concept is extremely obscure and is already covered by war. The word itself is an extremely obscure (and not even slightly witty) portmanteau neologism, which has a grand total of 4 recorded uses, apparently used by the users in different ways, and certainly not jargon. There is apparently (and I leave room to stand corrected by someone more knowledgeable) no evidence of the discussion of the actual word itself which would merit an encyclopedic article. A Google search for "wargasm" shows up more discussion of a video game, and the opening track of some random album Bricks Are Heavy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the article on "wargasm" to add it is a dictionary term. However, its closeness to the word "orgasm" (which has an extensive Wikipedia entry), together with its usage in public debates in the 1960s and 1970s by public figures of great importance, i.e. Norman Mailer and Dean Rusk, merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the prospect of an abrupt and potentially devastating nuclear war, is just as threatening as it was in the 20th century, although the Cold War has ended. I believe that "wargasm" is pertinent in linking current political and literary debate to what was said when the word was first introduced by Rusk. Wargasm=the abrupt outbreak of warfare is something which readers should have the privilege of appreciating. Has Wikipedia become so shallow as to only include "Wargasm" as a video game article? Does a pertinent article get deleted merely because it does not technically satisfy the requirements of a rule?Robert (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Google search the extent of your research? If so, then it's no wonder you are looking for things to delete on Wikipedia instead of being creative enough to add to its content. Would you at least be kind enough to identify who you are, with some description of yourself, rather than raiding people's efforts in anonymity. Your username is certainly not one conducive to intelligent thinking. What assumption did you employ to state that the word wargasm has been used a grand total of four times?Robert (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question. Is it an article about a word or concept? If it is the former, how is the word notable? Note that the comparison with orgasm is not valid because orgasms is a genuine physiological reaction that has been subject to large studies in sexology. We have articles about individual words, but none that is quite as bizarre as this. If it is the latter how does it differ from the article about nuclear war? Furthermore, noting especially that a "wargasm" has never occurred, how can any article concerning it be free of WP:OR? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to orgasm is a valid one, especially among wordsmiths like Mailer and Goodman. The likeness comparison merely means volatile, explosive, and combustible, which is characteristic of both terms. There are many terms which bring to mind sexual terminology but have no real relationship to them. Once a UNC teacher said that she was careful to pronounce organism distinctly because it was once misinterpreted by a student. The references which I retrieved the word from are each valid, solid refs., i.e. not spurious. The word was has been employed by very noteworthy individuals in both the literary and political fields.Robert (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wargasm" is not, repeat not, a physiological reaction and it has not been well studied academically. How can you compare the two? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches with additional terms, e.g. (wargasm "dean rusk"), (wargasm "norman mailer"), failed to turn up any evidence that any single meaning or closely related cluster of meanings or concepts attached to the word. While it occurs in any number of sources, there's no consistency of meaning. It's apparently been used for a massive launch-on-warning nuclear attack, for a 1969 event staged by the Weathermen, for group sex practiced by the W'men, for high-intensity tours of Civil War battlefields, for water-balloon fights between fraternities, and for any number of other things. I find no evidence that the specific meaning given in the WP article ever achieved significant penetration in popular or academic culture; as an obvious and mildly racy portmanteau, the word's been used in many different and only peripherally related ways, with no majority or strong plurality endorsing any of the meanings. Ammodramus (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it imperative that the word have a single meaning? It seems to be more meaningful and pertinent, seeing as you've found additional uses by the Weathermen, frats, and other groups.Robert (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The different meanings of a word are pertinent to a dictionary, not to an encyclopedia, which is about things and concepts rather than the words that denote them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition and an original essay on the origin of a non-notable neologism. This should be enshrined by our friends at Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pertinence of Wargasm (word) is evident in its usage by noteworthy persons in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not a word which will appear in standard dictionaries and should be kept for its importance regarding debate on politics, literature, academics, and general interest. The suggestion that it should be relegated to a dictionary is not sufficient. The term is getting numerous hits and should remain as a topic which readers may have access to. This debate was introduced by an individual who chooses to remain completely anonymous, giving no identification of who he is aside from a ridiculous sounding moniker unfit for a "Loony Tunes" segment, much less as the user name of a Wikipedia editorRobert (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per: "The pertinence of Wargasm (word) is evident in its usage by noteworthy persons in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not a word which will appear in standard dictionaries and should be kept for its importance regarding debate on politics, literature, academics, and general interest." Actually, that pretty much is the case for deletion — the fact that is is a non-standard, cutesy, lingo word would imply that it is probably NOT encyclopedic. In my opinion this belongs at Urban Dictionary, for sure, and Wiktionary, maybe — but not Wikipedia. Please note that I'm completely down the middle on this topic, being against war and in favor of orgasms. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word seems to have been coined independently several times, each time with a different meaning. None of the meanings has had any long life or notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the meanings are notable. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per: I differ with you that none of the meanings are noteworthy. Usage by Mailer and Rusk, the important issues which were being debated when the term was applied, along with additional uses in dictionaries and the New Yorker magazine, make the meaning and its usages significant, albeit not oft used.Robert (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "wargasm" is used exactly once in the ten pages of Daniel Lang's 1971 New Yorker piece, cited in the article under discussion here. It is used in a parenthetical aside; unfortunately, I didn't copy the page, but as I recall it occurred in a passage like "A full-scale nuclear exchange (in the jargon, "wargasm") would lead to..." Note that WP:GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."; but a trivial mention is exactly what occurs in the Lang piece.

I apologize for not being able to quote the passage exactly; if Robertg9 has a copy of the article at hand and can reproduce the sentence, it might help other editors decide how important or trivial Lang's use of the word was. Ammodramus (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a copy of the article unfortunately. I write virtually all of my Wikipedia articles on what's past, lot of it the distant past, i.e. film stars, buildings, people, and events. I believe that as with the content I have contributed earlier, "wargasm" is important because of its use by men who contributed much to public debate in the 20th century. Certainly it was not used often, yet it is memorable that it was employed by Mailer and Rusk during a crucial era in the history of the United States. Insightful people will be able to reflect on this. For example the term "groovy" is used seldom if any these days. However, to understand more about the Charles Manson and Jeffrey MacDonald murders, it is helpful to have a resource which explains terminology like this, along with the context of its usage. The term groovy was discovered on the walls of both crime scenes. One can sit back and say that we should have an alternate source, a dictionary, etc., for this kind of thing. Yet even if published, it will not have anywhere near the circulation that Wikipedia does. So what you have are high school and college students who see these expressions and need to go to an older person, their parents, instead of being able to find its meaning right in front of them. Wikipedia should make allowances, broaden its range of inclusion.Robert (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (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.