Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prolefeed (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 redirect to Newspeak#List of Newspeak words. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prolefeed edit

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

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

This is just a WP:DICTDEF. The 2009 keep at AfD was a pure WP:GOOGLEHITS=notable topic fallacy. These days we require reliable sources discussing stuff in-depth, and that's missing. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. [1] uses the term in its title but does not discuss it, and other sources are similar - some use the term, occasionally briefly attribute it to Orwell, but that's it. Nobody discusses it, analyses it or develops it further. The only solution I see is to redirect this back to Newspeak#List_of_Newspeak_words (it was a redirect, then it was made into a dictdef, with occasional edit warring about this). Orwell coined a bunch of notable words, but this one failed to establish itself - infotainment is already a much more common used neologism for this anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claims are false. And prolefeed is certainly not the same as infotainment which is "material which seeks to inform and entertain simultaneously;" Wikipedia is a good example of the latter, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the convincing rationale in the nomination. Also, I see that the "vote" above contains no policy-based explanation, except an an attack on the nominator. Such conduct is not best practices. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, to Newspeak#List_of_Newspeak_words. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newspeak#List_of_Newspeak_words - Outside of summaries of 1984, this word is used occasionally in sources, but the coverage is generally just limited to a sentence or two defining it. There doesn't seem to be sufficient actual coverage that would warrant an article, separate from the main Newspeak article, about this specific word. But, as its already covered on that article, a Redirect would be reasonable. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I could be swayed either way, leaning towards delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newspeak#List_of_Newspeak_words due to lack of significant coverage of the term/concept. Can anyone here access the "Prolefeed" chapter/section in But Do Blondes Prefer Gentlemen?: Homage to Qwert Yuiop, and Other Writings by Anthony Burgess? There's a chance that it might be a source that contributes to the subject meeting WP:GNG. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2021 (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.