Talk:We've Always Been At War With Eurasia

It has been suggested that the article We've Always Been At War With Eurasia be deleted for the following reason: "Dicdef, not in very common use, and not even a direct quote from the book"

I (the author of the article in question) believe that these reasons are unfounded.

Wikipedia's article on article deletions says the following about dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"): "Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers."

My article is clearly not defining anything, but identifying a (rare) colloquialism. I have seen many articles just as concise that were about sayings, quotes, and internet cliches (memes), and so I fail to understand why this article would be deleted when it is at the very least just as acceptable as any other article on a particular colloquialism, if not moreso because it uses a famous work of literature as a source. Had this article been the equivalent of, "The other one is commonly used in conversations to reference the person, thing, or concept that has not just been discussed, when it is the only remaining object of consideration in its domain," then I would of course agree that it is superficial, but in the case of "we've always been at war with Eurasia," I strongly believe that it is much more of a cultural phenomenon than a clever combination of words. Simply the fact that the words have more meaning than their denotation should show that this phrase deserves the fame of such gems as "I'll be a monkey's uncle." The fact that it is not often used is very unfortunate, but should not be reason to disqualify the article as significant - there exist hundreds of obscure references to colloquialisms and trends adopted by niche groups scattered across Wikipedia articles, of whom, in all likelihood, 95% of the population has never heard. Who the hell would understand a reference to Haruhi Suzumiya, or to the Brainfuck programming language? A far larger audience would understand a reference to 1984, but for some reason it's too obscure to be noted on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia's article on article deletion has made it very clear that it is not a paper encyclopedia, and I can't see how my article is any less deserving than the thousands of other concise articles that have been granted clemency.

Wikipedia's article on article deletion also lists the following as information that should be deleted from articles: FAQ's, Travel Guides, Memorials, Guides, Textbooks, and Plot Summaries. This article contains none of that information. As a matter of fact, the blurb on Plot Summaries does explain that real-world impact of the work, which is precisely what this article is about. For that reason, I suggest that at the very worst it should be merged into the article about 1984.

Though I have heard this phrase used every now and then, I have at least been asked what the meaning of the phrase is often enough that I was compelled to make this article.

(And it's not a direct quote from the book. Big deal - you want me to delete the word, "directly?" I have no strong emotional ties to that word's involvement in the article.)

-Tsukatu

Start a discussion about improving the We've Always Been At War With Eurasia page

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "We've Always Been At War With Eurasia" page.

Start a discussion