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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fracket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM). This belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Fashion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and Sororities Rublamb (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contested the PROD because there are enough sources and potential sources for a much fuller article. WP:NOTNEO indicates that exceptions are for a neologism that receives significant coverage in multiple sources. Major coverage is included in New York Magazine and publications at Dartmouth, Penn State, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Bucknell, and Syracuse. The coverage in college magazines and newspapers represents diverse locations and dates. Frackets are also mentioned in and sourced to a scholarly journal (Qualitative Sociology), two books (one by the editors of Seventeen magazine), Philadelphia Magazine, and CNET. Inclusion of the term's relationship to a company and literary inclusions suggest a potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. Its inclusion in an academic study gives credibility to the term beyond a neologism. Rublamb (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate Rublamb's efforts to add sources and expand the article. Below are some initial thoughts on the sources and external links added:

• The Cut: Qualifies as WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source.
• Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern 1 and 2 and the Bucknellian, either obvious Onion-style satire or self-disclosed as satire.
• The Crimson (Harvard), 34 St (Penn), Onward State (Penn State), Vanderbilt Hustler, Phillymag churnalism from Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn), Her Campus (Drexel chapter; this article is primarily based on an Urban Dictionary definition), JERK Magazine (Syracuse), The Tab (Penn State), University Girl SU (Syracuse). Some of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some are unreliably sourced (i.e. to Urban Dictionary), and the more substantive items read as opinion-style articles rather than factual reporting. Under WP:RSSM, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." This is a case by case situation and I don't think there's anything I would consider reliable WP:SIGCOV here.
• DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.: one-paragraph or one-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS out of a full book.
• A CNET article posted in 2023: all content post-November 2022 considered unreliable per WP:CNET.
• Use in a novel - see discussion of use-mention distinction at WP:NEO.
• Odyssey Online Brandeis and Odyssey Online Penn State: a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and thus unreliable. (According to its website, "Join Odyssey here to create, post and share your content. No approvals, no barriers. It's just you, your content, and your readers.")
• Mears and Mooney, Qualitiative Sociology: A single passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV.

To sum up, I think we have just the article in The Cut as WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward WP:GNG, and we need more. Outside of student media, there's not enough in-depth coverage of this neologism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the sources and potential sources. I have removed Odyssey as a source; good catch. However, disagree with some of your analysis.

• You seem to dismiss college newspapers as a reliable source or as having significant coverage. In fact, college newspapers are reliable, and given the universities involved, represent significant circulation. If there was just one article in one campus newspaper, you would have a point. But, as demonstrated by the various publications, the topic has significant coverage in a geographically diverse group of campus publications. Yes, the majority of the articles are features rather than news articles, but that is to be expected with fashion and culture topics. Note that the satirical publications are listed in external links and are not sources for the article.
• Tab and Her Campus are publications written by college students but are not affiliated with a specific campus. Thus, these to qualify as non-campus sources.
• Mears and Mooney mention the topic three times in their article, covering the origin and social importance of the fracket. The point is not whether this is trivial or significant coverage but that the term is being discussed in a scholarly article about campus life. This recognition of the term fracket by academics shows that it has moved beyond an Urban Dictionary term or neologism. This also demonstrates coverage in non-university publications.
• I agree that the mentions in the two books (DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.) and the novel are not significant coverage. Rather, these demonstrate coverage by mainstream publishing houses, ie. non-university publications, showing that the term has moved beyond a campus neologism, which is one of your main reasons for this AfD.
• While we can't use the Urban Dictonary as a source for Wikipedia because it is user-generated content, there is nothing wrong with using a source that discusses the Urban Dictionary's definition. That is, in fact, the very definition of a secondary source.

Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sourcing is inadequate for an entire mainspace article on this topic. Redirect to coat as a second option, and possibly merge over into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Response: If we go with redirect (which would be more beneficial to users and is also my second choice), another option would be Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as the term is already included there. I guess we need to decide if this fall under fraternity culture or clothing? I think the former, give the term's orgin. Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised to learn of this term, but am convinced it has generated enough usage and secondary sources to pass the notability test. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My knee-jerk reaction was to delete, but I checked out the article and there seems to be enough sourcing to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, here I am, thinking "fracket" was a potential swear word. #Wrong
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Rublamb's argument that college newspapers are reliable: info is given on the history of the term. Also, this reflects a practice, not only a term. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One article quotes a student saying "In the unwritten fracket law, if your fracket is stolen, you are in the right to take someone else’s fracket. While you are at it, you might as well upgrade like your robber did." The idea is that there is a "fracket culture". I think that's probably the best argument for justifying the existence of a Wikipedia article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:RSSM student publications can be reliable sources for news on their school and local community but not for much outside of that as professional sources are typically preferred when available. Based on the discussion, student media appears to be the only in-depth coverage but I don't think that's enough to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above by @Dclemens1971, one source is article in New York (magazine) (The Cut: The Best Idea Ever to Come From a Frat Party), that ia a professional, secondary source with in-depth coverage. Tab and Her Campus are also non-campus sources with sig coverage. Thus, notability is not relying just on campus sources.

  . Rublamb (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tab and HerCampus are sources affiliated with campus chapters written by college students. They would be covered under RSSM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rublamb and Mrfoogles. I also think this is the appropriate time to add in a lesson on how college journalism has changed radically over the past few decades. Between the large university presses, more reliable blogs and content users, the sourcing is fine. The slavish adherence to mainstream media (MSM) as the *only* reliable sources is, as of 2024, badly broken. Part of the change has been the deterioration of MSM, which instead of direct advertising and subscriptions, has become chained to clicks on their online platforms. The other major change has been the consolidation of higher education and paid journalism at those universities. In the 1980s, when I published a college newspaper at SUNY New Paltz, every staff member was a volunteer and our audience was the 2,200 students living full-time in the Residence halls. College newspapers today have paid staff, and my Alma mater has 8,300 students. Content creators didn’t exist in 1991, but 200 of them were credentialed at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. These are not your parent’s campus newspapers. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Rublamb's expansion and source analysis. I think the fact that this has attracted coverage in multiple, professional, secondary sources is good indication of notability- even if it's not the most significant of coverage. While I agree that it's never ideal to use student newspapers, that has to be balanced against the fact that the term has received coverages multiple, disparate student newspapers, apparently with editorial oversight comparable to some small-town newspapers, and that we're not using them to source an article on a contentious topic and/or a BLP. As an alternative to keep, the coverage should warrant a few sentences merged into the Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as an ATD. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2024 (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.