Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NyLon

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. The term is a neologism in limited use in some circles, but Wikipedia is not a directory for new coinages. A number of sources have been added to the article during the discussion, but none of of the accessible ones do more than mention the term in passing (thus, at most, attesting use of the term), and some do go on at some length about the New-York-London pairing, but do not even mention the term at all. No prejudice against creating a redirect to Nylon (magazine), which might be reasonable given the concepts align.

Despite the great deal of incivil and single purpose account comments in the discussion, no argument rooted in policy or guideline has been put forth to suggest why the article should be kept. — Coren ^(talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NyLon

Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. NawlinWiki 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Really? Is this article really vermin to you or something? Can't you really notice NyLon's extenive use in the media?

You are not really right Nawlin... See also [1]. I didn't make up this term. There is such a thing as a "NyLon commuter" to give you just one example. BTW I live in London so I know this term is widespread. Don't rush and delete this article just because. Can't you see it is used in the prestigious FT ? If they gave it a greenlight why erase it? The term already exists, we cannot do anything about it! BTW And there are plenty more refferences in the media ready to be added . Apostolos Margaritis 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got NO RIGHT to decide arbitrarily what to delete or not just because it happens that you dislike an article. And it is not used ONLY in ONE FT article. Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. There is The Observer too. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist.Apostolos Margaritis 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NyLon exists and it is acknowledged as such even by German language sources

[2] London wiederum ist eng verbunden mit New York, sodaß manche schon von NyLon (New York-London) sprechen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill...why the militant response? First of all, the nominator is not just "deciding on his own" to delete this article - the entire point of bringing it to AfD is so people can have a reasoned, structured debate about whether or not to delete it. And you're more than welcome to "mobilise wiki users", so long as you understand that this is not a vote and that they'll have to either prove the term is notable or work to improve the article....oh, and I'd suggest you don't use german on English wiki talk pages or add titles into AfD debates - it's bad form and doesn't help your case. Tx17777 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a neologism and one that I doubt will stick. Also, the first reference link provided is to a "NYLON Magazine" - is this disguised spam? JohnCD 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely-sourced neologism. The first source, as JohnCD mentions, is for Nylon Magazine and has nothing to do with this term. It is merely referring to a common lifestyle of the two cities. The other source does not provide much to substantiate the often grandiose claims in this article, such as: "The term is often used by newspaper commentators on the both sides of the Atlantic, and has more recently gained acceptance as such." If it's "often" used by newspaper commentators, where are the sources? Maybe this term will take off some day, but I need to mention WP:CRYSTAL here. As it stands, this is mainly original research and speculative. Get some more sources, real ones, and maybe this article could stand. freshacconcispeaktome 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

There are reputable, respectable sources making the case for NyLon but you've got no eyes for them and seem to refuse the evidence . "World capital? Nylon, of course " in "The Observer" Sunday, March 25, 2007 So we'got the Financial Times, we've got The Observer what else on earth do you want more than that? Apostolos Margaritis 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Oops, there we go. We'got now The Independent's Gilbert Gerard endorsing the term too.[reply]

Delete Half-speculative trivia, which, if kept at all, can easily be some footnote in one of the articles we have on this subject. As a side note, I strongly object to editors not taking the time to include new articles in relevant categories or linking them on other pages (though, in this case, it may not have been worth that trouble). Dahn 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does the use of the phrase as the title of a TV show move it out of the ambit of WP:NEO? I'm undecided. Otto4711 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me, Ny-Lon the TV show, NYLON the magazine and "NyLon" the word/term, although they may employ the same abbreviation (which I assume they do), are not necessarily part of a larger popular culture use of a collective term, understood and used by a larger group. A similar example may be SoHo, South of Houston in the NY sense, which is collectively understood to mean one thing, one specific place. If different groups, individuals and media outlets independently coin a term or abbreviation – even if it means the same thing – does that mean it is now part of the larger language or collective conscience? At some point, yes, "NyLon" may be used within regular English, enough to warrant an article. I'm not convinced it is yet. I see a series of coincidences. If this was a cultural phenomena of some sort, surely there would be more sources available? Yes, two more have been added, but isn't this just grasping at straws? Three writers have coined a term. They didn't employ an already existing word. freshacconcispeaktome 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Freshacconci shows true common sense above and I cannot say I entirely disagree with him. As to all the other wiki-flunkies [i.e. the likes of Dahn (a native Romanian speaker he claims !? Well, I ought to be one of them too should I not? Hmmmm) & the ones he's unctuously aping] all what I can tell you is: no probs, go on! wipe off the article, erase it! It's not my personal loss really but Wikipedia's. Yet this emerging term NyLon can not strictly speaking be erased anymore since it has fatally and already entered the vocabulary of the English language. Apostolos Margaritis 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're no newbie and that you have been warned before, I should be taking you to WP:AN/I for this comment and the piece of hate mail you left on my talk page. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. Dahn 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Dahn! Under no circumstances my missive to you can be described as "hate mail". So stop using self-made labels and sticking them on this message board. You do not impress anyone around by playing the pathetic "tough guy" card. I tell you what: better mind your own businesses by which I mean the dull platitudes gathered under the title the "Walachian 1848 Revolt". Articles such as NyLon are perhaps an inch too demanding and too ground breaking for your peace of mind. Apostolos Margaritis 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete --Ralsog Iref 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)— Ralsog Iref (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be so kind and do not delete that part of my text whith my comment, i.e. my opinion (if the other part, referring to the tag, has to be done away with). Otherwise it is plain censorship. I, Ralsog Iref 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC), earlier wrote:[reply]

":Keep this article. At least keep it for a while (1-2 years). It is balanced and short. Even if "nylon" with this meaning is very recent, i.e. a neologism, and even it belongs to a category some call "trivia", why should such an information not be available @ en.wp? The term has also entered other languages (as the art. puts it, e.g. in German). If plenty of stuff has to be blocked and eliminated because of such criteria as those mentioned, then for what reason should I look things up in the Wikipedia? Only because I don't have to pay a certain... fee as I have for accessing old-fashioned encyclopaedias, e.g. Britannica, Meyers, Brockhaus etc., on paper or CDROM? --Ralsog Iref 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)" --Ralsog Iref 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in spite of everything else. As others of us have pointed out, this is not a debate about what we think about Mr. Margaritis, but about the merits of the article. I am in no way endorsing anything that that person has written. On the other hand, there is an article called Nylon (magazine) which probably should be called "NYLON (magazine)", because this newsstand publication's title and its premise really is based on the idea of an interconnection between New York and London in fashion design. The idea of an Anglo-American, Fifth Avenue/Carnaby Street culture, is notable enough to launch a glossy magazine, and seems to have gotten notice elsewhere outside of the fashion mag. Thus, I think it's more than a neologism. I think that the "defense" in this case hasn't helped the article's chances for survival. I can only suggest that the NYLON Magazine piece be stretched (without getting a run in it of course) to accomodate the New York/London concept that was expressed in what was a fairly well-done article Mandsford 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I understood correctly, your vote is actually "merge into" another article (I also proposed this in my "delete" vote). Dahn 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although some sources may not be the best, I would suggest keeping the article while finding more dependable sources. I don't think we are here to predict what will or will not stick with the times. If predicting is what the naysayers want, then I predict that as the world becomes more interconnected with the uses of the Internet and improvements on transportation that this term will become even more common. We can argue the lasting impact of the word all we want, its not up to us whether it will last, it is in use now and should therefore stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanlammi (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — Ryanlammi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The sources are reputable enough to keep, even if it's a neologism. How do you expect Wikipedia to remain interesting if you turn it into a conservative encyclopedia? Wikipedia's force is exactly the fact that it includes lots of aspects that could not make it into an encyclopedia, such as the list of Friends or StarGate episodes, or the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (which is, of course, 42). Dpotop 09:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanx Dpotop! As a matter of fact new and solid references keep popping up like pop corn. Apart from FT and The Observer we've got now the über-cool The Independent defining NyLon. The NyLon conurbation was defined by The Independent's Gilbert Gerard as "a nexus between New York and London - the common bond between the two great cities" see Toil of two cities in The Independent Aug 9, 2004 by Gerard Gilbert Apostolos Margaritis 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nylon (magazine) - The term is a neologism for a virtual city and, as such, doesn't merit a separate article. The magazine, on the other hand, actually exists and relevant information from this article would seem to be a good fit for its article (which could use some expansion, anyway). —Travis ^talk 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rather think. (Which could be merge of course.) I believe there was also a Radio 4 play with this title, or making extensive use of the term. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03 13 November 2007 (GMT).
Comment A merge may be reasonable, given the disconnectedness of the use of the phrase (see my comment above). The basic info could be salvaged and the Nylon (magazine) article could be expanded, which needs doing anyway. freshacconcispeaktome 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So you want to expunge NyLon while keeping Nylon (magazine)? That would be exactly like keeping Wallpaper* (magazine) while eliminatig the article wallpaper (material which is used to cover and decorate the interior walls of homes). I find the of logic behind this planned move of yours quite irrational to say the least. Your analogy with SoHo should not apply here. These Sohos you allude to have different meanings. The London Soho has a specific etymology which has to do with the old hunting (or rallying) call while the NY SoHo's is that of (being situated) South of Houston. In NyLon's case there is a distinctive thread, narrative if you wish, which has to do EXCLUSIVELY with NY and London coming together. That is not Soho/SoHo's case: we haven't got this South of Houston (hi)story here in London, though as putative parts of a virtual NyLon the two Sohos might one day absorb a new, expanded collective meaning Apostolos Margaritis 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current condition. The article is crap. It's worse than the breathless speculation which used to fill Wired Magazine. Argyriou (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really commenting on the above user's personal choice of words. It tells a lot about his cultural horizon. But I forgive him not least for the sake of a higher aim, that of making him understand things are sometimes more complex that this "black and white" dichotomy he seems to be a fan of. As for NyLon being "speculation" as Argyrious puts it, well, the sources it relies upon are of such repute (Financial Times, Sunday Times, The Independent, The Economist and The Observer) that no sane person could really raise by now any objections as to the very existence of this "concept" or "acronym" of NyLon. Don't argue with me (don't "kill the messenger") but with these above mentioned cultural commentators who belong to the "crème de la crème" of the printed media. -- Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2007 (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.