Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy-clappy

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 undecided so keep. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-clappy[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an article on a minor expression. Anything of substance should be covered in an article on, maybe, "Pentecostal worship" or something like that. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is more than a "minor expression", it's a very widely known term for several styles of worship, the people and churches that worship in these manners, and the attitudes and culture of these people in groups in relation to religion and more generally. It's use is not just restricted to Penetcostal worship, but also other non-traditional branches of Christianity with (perceived) high-energy (or at least higher-energy than C of E) services; for example some evangenlical churches. As such I don't think that Pentecostal worship would be a good target. We should retain the title in some way, either an article or possibly a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: I've no objection to the merge and redirect to Contemporary worship proposed below. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- addendum: Uncle G stresses below that there is no such thing as "a happy-clappy" (although see [1]), as it's an adjective not a noun, and Wikipedia articles should not normally be at adjectival titles. There is no single noun that "happy-clappy" modifies, nor is there a single concept behind it. The most common single meaning is related to Contemporary worship, which is why I am agreeing that this is probably the best target for a redirect (my comment below details why we should have something at this title, be it redirect, article, dab page, or piece of green cheese, or something else). However to cater for other uses of the adjective "happy clappy" is Wiktionary's job (and it's doing it), so I suggest we have a hatnote at Contemporary worship along the lines of "Happy-clappy redirects here, for information about the term see Wiktionary:happy-clappy". Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition, nonnotable neologism. Unlikely search term. Edison (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a nonnotable neologism! It get's over 215,000 google hits as an exact phrase and was notably used by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1980s. [2] is an example of the use since 1984. The page title was viewed 896 times in November according to stats.grok.se. Whether it needs to be an article or not, all the evidence points towards it being a very likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not Wiktionary. We don't need examples of adjectives in use in running prose discussing something else to satisfy deletion policy. We need sources documenting a person, place, event, concept, or thing that can go by this title. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed this is not Wiktionary, which is why you'll note the comment you are replying to is solely about why we need something at this title because it's a very likely search term. You will, if you have read it, have noted that my comments about why we should have an article about this concept (at whatever title) above are not expressed in terms of language. I do understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary (being an administrator on both projects), and while it is clear that some people do not, please do not assume that every comment that mentions Wiktionary or dictionaries in general is applying dictionaric criteria to the merits of keeping or otherwise of a subject on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no assumption when that's the very thing that they plainly are doing. Examples of incidental use in running prose, such as the one that you gave, are completely irrelevant and are exactly the sorts of arguments about attestation that come up at Wiktionary. Talking about "this concept" is further confusion. There is no "this concept". "A happy-clappy" is meaningless without a noun to go with it, as already explained. You want to state that there's a concept? Then make the encyclopaedia argument with sources documenting it. Where's a good source documenting the concept of "a happy-clappy"? Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my first comment for the encyclopaedia issues, as I pointed you to last time. The comment you are referring to is simply showing why people are likely to search for the phrase "happy-clappy" and makes no suggestion regarding what should be at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You've avoided, with claims that you've made an encyclopaedia argument when you have not, a question that you haven't in fact answered. I repeat for a third time: An encyclopaedia argument shows that sources document a concept by this name. You've yet to make one of those, anywhere. And you haven't answered the question asked. Where's a source? Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Happy-clappy is in the updated OED and has 348 ghits in Google Scholar. This article needs improvement not deletion. Keahapana (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in a dictionary is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. And articles have to be about subjects denoted by their titles, not dictionary articles for words and phrases. Generally that means nouns and noun phrases, per our naming conventions. So answer us this: What is a happy-clappy? Please define what a happy-clappy is. Hint: The question doesn't seem grammatical because it is two dangling adjectives looking for a noun to qualify that isn't there. A happy-clappy something. That's what an encyclopaedia article, on a concept, place, person, event, or thing denoted by its title, would be about.
  And if you'd actually looked at your Google Scholar search results, to see what is actually turned up by such a search, rather than doing pointless counting of meaningless hit numbers, you'd have known that, since they all have nouns after the adjectives (qualifying a fairly wide range of things from "happy-clappy chappy" to "happy-clappy Negroes" and not agreeing upon let alone denoting a single coherent concept). Counting search engine hits is not research. One has to pull one's finger out and read what the search engines find for one. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Uncle G posts is, in general, absolute and unassailable truth. Edison (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Contemporary worship. This is a notable topic, but writing about it using a semi-derogatory term as a title isn't the best home for this information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can all agree on WP:NOTDIC. It's true that Google Scholar counts aren't research, but they are a common metric for notability. It's false that happy-clappy is only adjectival. The OED gives, happy-clappy n. and a. colloq. (joc. or mildly derog.), "A. n. A member of a Christian charismatic group. B. attrib. passing into adj. Of or pertaining to such a group." My Traitor's Heart has the earliest recorded noun usage, "Both were members of the Apostolic Church, happyclappies in South African slang — into the laying on of hands, faith healing, and speaking in tongues." Keahapana (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a dictionary argument, too, despite agreeing that this isn't a dictionary. Try making an encyclopaedia argument. Answer the question that Thryduulf has avoided: Where's a good source documenting a concept by this name? And no, Google hit counts are not a common metric for notability, and haven't been, for people who actually know their stuff, for over half a decade. Their use is a common error, made by people who don't understand Google. That's why we have Project:Google searches and numbers, for people to read and learn better from. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - the term used throughout the English-speaking world, including the United States to describe low church pentacostalism in the Episcopal Church. Can be sourced easily by cites on Google and Bing. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charismatic Movement unless sources are added to flesh out the article and bring it into compliance with WP:V. The article is already more than a dicdef, so WP:DICT is irrelevant. —Angr (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICDEF. Also, I tend to want to automaticly delete any unsourced article, although bringing 300,000 articles to AfD is not something I'm crazy enough to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary it. It's a dicdef, and Wikipedia isn't the place for dicdefs. However, wiktionary is. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:25, 8 January 2011 (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.