Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraviolence

Ultraviolence[edit]

Ultraviolence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Originally prodded as "Article incorrectly defines nonnotable neologism with uncited original research." however with three hours remaining article was rewritten by creator with prod tag deleted. Article still fails WP:NEO as a nonnotable neologism, with the lead being a dictionary definition (and still incorrect) followed by a list of uses in popular culture. Lead is entirely original research with no sources about the term itself and only citations for where it used to describe other things. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into A Clockwork Orange. This term is definitely notable, having been coined almost twenty years before I was born by Anthony Burgess and later used by Stanley Kubrick in his film adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. The article isn't very well written right now but I don't consider a term coined nearly fifty years ago by a major British author and used in a film adaptation by a major film director to be a neologism. Redfarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though I don't know if my vote really counts, being the aforementioned "creator" and all) I think Redfarmer is spot on with his comment. As for considering the term "nonnotable", I think that's not a NPOV statement at all. If I didn't know this word is relevant in modern culture, like many other words that have good articles here in WP, I wouldn't be struggling so much to keep it in. I've said before that the word itself has no official definition anywhere, so you can't ask for sources for that, because they don't exist (for now). All you can do is what I think I did, which is showing that the word is a significant part of our culture whether or not it has been taken seriously by academics or otherwise. I've already said the article needs lots of work, but that's no grounds for deleting it instead of improving it. Kreachure (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are no sources for an article it fails both WP:N and WP:V. The way the article is written now fails WP:NEO. If you want the term kept, merge this article into A Clockwork Orange. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, aren't we debating that decision here? Why are you saying "if you want the term kept" as if you already knew that the decision was delete or merge? If the decision is merge, then that's what we'll do, not what the person who proposed the deletion in the first place demands to be done. Kreachure (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete The page is essentially just a dictionary-style definition with a bunch of uncited mentions of the word in popular culture. Spylab (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into A Clockwork Orange. A separate article is totally unnecessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have absolutely no problem with going with merge on this one for now. Can we do it, though, without prejudice so that another user who has done some research can recreate the article? I'm almost certain secondary sources exist on this term, as much controversy as Kubrick's adaptation of it caused. I don't have time right now to do research into it, though, but it may be something I'm interested in later on (I'm an English major). Redfarmer (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to either A Clockwork OrangeorAestheticization of violence. Burzmali (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to either A Clockwork Orange and\or Aestheticization of violence. The term primarily refers to A Clockwork Orange. Outside of that, it's used to refer to Aestheticization of violence. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into A Clockwork Orange and/or Aestheticization of violence or if necessary Nadsat Doc Strange (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I think that the term's notability really is limited outside the context of A Clockwork Orange.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:23, 21 January 2008 (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.