Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/86 (term)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – bradv🍁 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86 (term)[edit]

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

86 (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTDICT. It consists of a definition, etymology, and a couple examples of attested uses, and it's difficult to see how it could expand beyond that. Notability for a word itself is a very high bar, else we could include articles like this for practically any word (especially recent-ish slangy terms with etymology being discussed). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering this has become part of the current political news cycle, the term has gained a lot of relevance. That is why it became relevant at this point in time, after all... I came to this article to see what the fuss was about after hearing about it on the news. Deleting it at this point seems rash, because it could have an influence on things, and thus allow for an opportunity for the article to expand. I think waiting to see how events play out would be the best course of action. -Matirion (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I have absolutely no idea what any of the fuss is about. I got here while patrolling the edit request queue, saw an article that fails NOTDICT (as I detail in my nomination statement), and nominated it for that reason alone. A word needs wide cultural significance to be notable. See Ain't for one good example where it is. Even if there's some hubbub over someone's use of the word, it doesn't make the word itself notable. It might be worth talking about in the article of the person who said it, or even possibly not at all (see WP:NOTNEWS). Another example is Controversies about the word niggardly. The word niggardly is itself not notable, even though there have been quite a few high-profile dust-ups about it. And here, it's the totality of incidents that warrants an article. Any one by itself almost surely wouldn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While 86 was granted some scrutiny from recent events, I believe we should evaluate this article in the bigger picture. In other words, will this be relevant tomorrow? A few weeks down the line? A month later? I don't think it'll maintain the views to sustain itself just from that angle. Therefore, we should focus the argument on long-term notability. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not  86 this article. As Matirion indicates, the term exploded today onto the political landscape of the 2020 United States presidential election, meaning many users will turn to Wikipedia for a better understanding of its usage and wider context. It would send a very bad signal to delete an article just because the Trump campaign hijacked this colorful piece of Americana by circulating a screenshot of our definition that included "killing someone." NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response above. But in short, none of that is relevant. The word itself isn't notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to relevant Wiktionary articles wikt:86 and wikt:eighty-six. To be honest, I cannot find a decent policy-based argument around the appeal to how Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary. I’ve been looking at sources for 86’ing, and all of them are about etymology, which fits uncomfortably close to what the policy is describing. On the other hand, I don’t recommend deleting it because 86 is a well-known acronym that people will want to look for, even outside of the Twitter controversy. Wiktionary is a wiki that provides articles about words qua words, and most discussion about this word is etymological. Reference to definitions of words can be added to these articles. If a definition is not yet found there, one should find it used in a speech or similar published source (tweets would not count, but there are better sources out there anyway) and put it in. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this. It is a current political event, in that the Michigan Governor has nick nack on her desk that says “86 45” , meaning get rid of Trump’s presidency, while a Trumpers are now claiming that is a death threat. The meaning of the term is being debated, and this site helps explain its history from the 1930’s about it being a restaurant term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51C1:6828:BCCC:5560:E5D1:191A (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, delete it. wikipedia is not a dictionary, and yet almost the entire entry is the equivalent of a wiktionary entry - Cdjknu (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the term receives more coverage especially from reliable sources in the next few days or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. If this article is kept, then there should be a section covering the Whitmer-Trump Campaign controversy. Personally I am inclined towards keeping the article as long as it briefly explains the "WhItMeR WaNtS TrUmP DeAd" fiasco going on and doesn't give too much importance to the Trumpers' definition of "86". 45.251.33.218 (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there's something to say about the controversy, it's at a different article (theirs, or even a new one), but not here. One kerfuffle over a word, no matter how huge, doesn't suddenly make the word itself notable, even if the kerfuffle is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not satisfying WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Almost all of the cited sources relate to etymology, and the remainder verify usage. No objection to soft redirect to Wiktionary:eighty-six. I would, however, compare 23 skidoo (phrase). Like 86, there is enduring mystery about the origins of 23 and 23 skidoo. Unlike 86, though, 23 skiddoo has added notability as apparently the first slang fad of the twentieth century. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we aren't voting, but I think this should be deleted. I think Wikipedia acting as a dictionary both dilutes it's functional utility and duplicates other more "definitive" sources. OC-Highlander — Preceding unsigned comment added by OC-Highlander (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original creator here. I have no problem with deletion here under DICTDEF, though as has been pointed out the inadvertent timing here means that recreations will need to be monitored for a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the article and believe it should be retained. It provides good references and sources and goes well beyond what is found in a dictionary. The phrase is used in many contexts and it helps bring people to Wikipedia. I believe its removal would reduce the usefulness of the site as a whole. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are several sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger to another page such as
  1. 86 (number)
  2. Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom
  3. List of restaurant terminology
which all already mention the topic. But it would be better to keep the page as it clearly passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT as there is extensive interest, study and commentary on the uncertain history of this usage. For a good example, see The Atlantic – A Restaurant ‘Eighty-Sixed’ Sarah Huckabee Sanders. What Does That Mean?. That good source was not cited in the article until I did some clean-up just now and so there's clearly scope for improvement. As WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One can find magazine articles about interesting words all over the place; that doesn't mean the word itself can sustain a Wikipedia article. See my example above about how we don't (and shouldn't) have an entry for niggardly, even though we do have an article about several noteworthy kerfuffles over its usage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
niggardly is a blue link so we do have an entry for it. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's a blue link because it's a redirect to an article that's not about the word on its own. The word on its own is most definitely not notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The word on its own" – what does that mean? Things only have significance as a result of their interaction. If something only exists in splendid isolation then it is therefore not notable. See If a tree falls in a forest... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than a dicdef. Notable references. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it more than a dicdef? References aren't notable; topics are. And this topic isn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notable references" was sloppy shorthand by me - just looking at snopes there is a wealth of information to build a solid article (depending on reliable sourcing of course) that'd be considerably larger than a dicdef. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Won't be found in British English dictionaries, for one thing. At worst could be merged to 86 (number), but better as it is. Gets over 2K views a day, and 25K on the 18th. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, 86 (number) isn't really an appropriate merge target. Despite the cruft that accumulates in number articles, there's been an effort to remove this sort of trivia that's not actually about the number itself. No comment if there are better targets or not though. Also, "Won't be found in British English dictionaries, for one thing." doesn't let us get around NOTDICT. Lots of non-any variety of English words don't either, but that's certainly not enough for an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In terms of some of the suggestions I've seen, I'm generally not a fan of soft Wiktionary redirects, but this might actually be a reasonable time for one, so I wouldn't object to that as an outcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets GNG, the term has been used (and studied) for decades and has migrated into numerous communities and industries. Nom may not have realized how challenging it was to find sources while looking.
    Wikipedia has lots of articles on words (over 200 at least, see Category:English words), so there is no precedent being broken. A good article discussing possible etymologies, uses and meanings is certainly possible. I also found:
  • I’ll look for more. Here is the Snopes.com research. Gleeanon 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a useless source dump which offers absolutely nothing constructive to the discussion. (I'd collapse it, but god forbid). Sources detailing the etymology do not contribute to notability, because etymology by itself is merely dictionary fodder. There needs to be something more, and just dumping a list of search results is utterly useless without saying how any of them demonstrate notability. (The longer the list is, the more useless the list; see WP:THREE). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll explain again why a list of useful sources is relevant for a discussion on notability. In short it demonstrates that GNG is indeed met despite a rather BLUDGEONY attempt to insist they are a dump of some kind. Apparently authors and researchers know something that you do not. Gleeanon 14:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a list of search results does not show that something meets GNG. Someone simply using a word (as many of these seem to be) does not indicate the word is notable. Even a source studying the etymology of the term doesn't, because etymology is dictionary fare. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these talk about the slang, argot, and jargon uses of the word, perfectly useful to build a good article despite cynicism to the contrary. Gleeanon 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this article has been around for 10 years and all the sudden someone wants to delete it now, when it has had a spike in popularity? I know what 86 means and think it's a sick joke that this is even up for discussion. The page should simply be restored to the version from the beginning of October. Anything else is purely politically motivated. Techie007 (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally it’s been restored already with only trivial mentions removed which is good. Gleeanon 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited by User:Casliber and User:Techie007 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep do not 86 this article! I know exactly what that means. I worked at a restaurant throughout my teen years as a busboy and dishwasher. This was a colloquial expression oft used in the business. This particular expression has found its way into other parts of society. The Etymology or derivation is interesting. The article has shown that 86 is more than a dictionary definition. The term and the article are certainly referenced well, with the New York Times, Baltimore Sun, The Atlantic passing WP:V and WP:N. FYI. page views this year so far...319,839. If the encyclopedia is here for the readers...the readers confirm with their page views that the article is useful. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh No. Deacon Vorbis is deleting whole sections to favor his deletion nomination. I have seen this movie before and it always ends in frustration. Edit warring is not in the cards for me today, but if anyone is interested here are the two sections he 86'd. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful. If you're not going to be helpful, stop participating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is emphatically not about doing whatever any particular mob wants it to do, especially not for such an awful wad of non-reasons as just provided. You'd think from the way people respond here that this were a petition to delete the term from the English language, not to fold one short article into another. I wish I'd just deleted the excessive stuff in the first place, thus short-circuiting this mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your comments. I have given guideline based reasons for keeping the term. I only pontificated on the page views. I then improved the article with RS. And the nominator began deleting sections of the article to favor the nomination which states that this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. I will now continue adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is overwhelmingly clear, so there is no mess here. Secondly, it's pity for you then that you can't circumvent consensus (or what you call "short-circuiting this mess"). --Cold Season (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon request of the nominator, I will give my opinion. There are sociopolitical and cultural aspects to this term, as such this is not simply a DICTDEF (even if there was an effort to 86 these sections from the article by the nominator). --Cold Season (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 86 (number) or Delete - I don't believe that this needs a stand-alone article given how almost every number article handles the slang for it. For an example, the slang for 88 is listed on 88 (number) in either the 'Cultural significance' section or the 'Other fields' section. The slang for 69 is listed on [[69 (number)#In other fields|69 (number) in the 'Other fields' section. The disambiguation page for 61 mentions that it can be used as slang for the character Ы. The 250 (number) article lists the slang for 250 in Chinese in the lede. The 64 (number) article lists that 64 used to be slang for the Commodore 64 prior to the launch of the Nintendo 64. The 25 (number) article has a section for 'Slang names' though with only one entry. Similarly, 500 (number) has a 'Slang names' section. For a final example, though not the last example, 50 (number) covers that it is used as slang for a Police Office in the 'In other fields' section.
This extends out a bit to other numbers with the 13 (number) article having a section titled "Lucky and unlucky" with links to the article Triskaidekaphobia (a phobia) and a Disambiguation page called Lucky Thirteen. The article 4 has a number of section detailing its use in politics, in religion, and other areas with the 'In other fields' section detailing that Four sounds like the word Death in a few cultures. The article 0 talks a bit about slang words for 0 with the article Names for the number 0 in English having a section for slang. Again, there are more examples of this.
The only article I found that had the slang for the number as an independent article was 187 (slang), which devotes most of its space to the California Penal Code. Only the lede there refers to the slang at all in a few brief sentences, causing it to appear to fail WP:NOTDICT. Given that there does seem to be more credibility to 86 being a slang term, I feel that it could be merge to 86 (number) without problems and would be the best solution, but it does fail as a stand-alone article as all the article is about is how the word is used as slang so a delete is recommended over a keep. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Merge to 86 (number) or Delete. Put the content under Cultural significance of 86 (number). Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation to the above - Amending the above, I feel that it is best to summarize the current state of the article. The lede currently has four sentences with each of them referring to just the definition of the word and when it was introduced. The first section is the 'Etymology and meanings' section which list the definition as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. Towards the end, the section covers when the term was likely introduced and gives possible origins to the term. The second section is the 'Notable uses' section, which covers the use of the term in songs, movies, and novels for the first half of the section and its use in politics for the second. The remaining sections are the 'See also' and 'References' sections. This leads me to believe that WP:NOTDICT applies as there is nothing in the article except the definition of the word and when it was used. As stated above, a merge is recommended over a delete, but there is not enough to the article to allow it to be a stand-alone article. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the news due to Donald Trump and Gretchen Whitmer, the reliable sources pointing towards notability be a-flying. Try THIS for size... ("What Does ‘86 45’ Mean? Trump Campaign Claims Whitmer Is ‘Encouraging Assassination Attempts’') Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THIS piece by Snopes from March 2009 is also compelling. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly a notable slang term, article is far more than just a dictionary definition. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is common in the US. It's NOT not notable. Lighthead þ 02:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as I can tell, based on sources and others' comments, the slang term is notable enough to have its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If only for the reason that deleting an article immediately after it gets politically highlighted brings wikipedia into disrepute. The issue can be revisited after a few months if necessary. Asgrrr (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. of widespread cultural significance in a variety of contexts; needs discussion, not a dictionary entry. . Its use in the current political conflict, if it was indeed actually used with the implied meaning is unfortunate, , but to remove a word because of that reason is downright censorship--censorship that has the effect that censorship usually does have have--trying to censor something even when it is used wrongly will always have detrimental results on the freedom of information. We will be blamed here no matter what we do, so the safe course--which is also the ethical course--is to stick to our principles. generally. Even if you do not agree with me about the extent of the implications of withdrawing the article, It will be easier to defend keeping to our foundational values when dealing with content of this sort, than to depart from them for political reasons. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep., of course. Whatever the original merits of the NOTDICT objection, the term now has a history in multiple RS that is appropriate to Wikipedia rather than Wictionary. Andyvphil (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV - I suppose, ironically, this was nominated for deletion precisely because it's in the news. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what everybody is going to suppose, whether true or not. That's why it's a terrible idea to nominate an article for deletion under such circumstances.Asgrrr (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was a thing years before today. See books Eighty-Sixed by David B. Feinberg (2002), and Eighty-Sixed by Brian Phares (2019). This deletion discussion page should be eighty-sixed. Right cite (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as the English Wikipedia has relevant articles about Quisling, Limey, Frenemy, and Sheep shagger, there is precedent for keeping this article, which meets WP:GNG. - AppleBsTime (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - I work in the restaurant industry, and this is perhaps the most common and universal unique phrase to it. Not to mention all the sourcing and encyclopedic content here. ɱ (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is now notable as has received significant coverage as of late.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/86_(term)&oldid=1137526763"