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

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. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular

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

Article fails WP:NOT. Dea db eef 19:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't see, really, what part of WP:NOT this falls afoul of. I can only see potential issues with WP:NOT#DICT and WP:DISCRIMINATE, and given that the article goes beyond the level of a simple definition and establishes notability for the subject (with two notable sources quoted directly in the body of the article), I don't think that it has particular problems with either. It needs some clean-up to fit the style of the wiki, but other than that, I think that this is a legitimately encyclopedic (if odd) topic and an attempt to tackle it. Article was also rescued after a previous AfD, with the Deletion Review Log here. Reasons given there are pretty good for maintaining the article on this wiki. Chri$topher 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, relatively notorious linguistic phenomenon with a documented history, proper fare for an encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as useful redirect. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as suggested by Beagel. Although the misspelling Nucular has been used in multiple non-primary reliable sources, does the subject of the misspelling of Nuclear, and its use, received significant coverage? That is more debatable. As a compromise a movement of the content to the Wiktionary appears to be a good solution, with a redirect to the correct spelling with a Template:R from misspelling tag would be appropriate, as the majority of the content actually talks about content which is within the scope of the Nuclear article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a misspelling, but a mispronunciation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be enough coverage to establish notability by the standard usually applied on Wikipedia, and the content presented here is an exploration of the possible origin of the term and of its prevalence in society rather than a definition, so a Wiktionary move wouldn't be appropriate. Chri$topher 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely this qualifies, doesn't it?Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No argument for non-notability has been made to date. The dictionary comments cited are sufficient evidence of notability. (They are "reliable" "sources", "independent of the subject", providing "significant coverage". [The same goes for the Slate article.]) Note that each such comment goes beyond the usual dictionary entry in that it discusses pronunciation, not spelling, and does so at some length. The article does so at even greater length and depth and thus does not belong in Wiktionary. Frappyjohn (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2013 (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.