Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAS syndrome (2nd nomination)

:{{la|RAS syndrome}} ([{{fullurl:RAS syndrome|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAS syndrome (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Tagged for RS sources (ha ha, I'm so funny) since November 2007, but the only sources are from newsgroups and other unreliable sources. I think it's time for this to be listed at the AFD deletion list of articles that are to be deleted. Only sources that turned up in the last AFD were New Scientist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep is the New Scientist an unreliable source or something? I'm inclined to keep. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, it's just only one source. The rest of the "sources" I've found are unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Then you haven't looked hard enough. Bryan A. Garner's The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style (ISBN 9780195135084) documents redundant acronyms such as "UPC code", "ATM machine", and "HIV virus" on page 2. Yes, that's Bryan A. Garner. David Salomon, Giovanni Motta, and David Bryant have something to say on this subject on page 18 of ISBN 9781846286025. Jacques Vallée certainly buys into the notion of a "Redundant Acronym Syndrome", accusing Doug Engelbart of being afflicted with it on page 50 of ISBN 9781571743695. Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, documents "PIN number", "VIN number", and "UPC code" as common errors in English usage on page 158 of his book, Common errors in English usage (ISBN 9781887902892). Michael Sheehan ([http://verbmall.blogspot.com/ this one]), in Words to the Wise (ISBN 9780966531688), adds "SAT test" and "CPI index" to the list of redundant acronyms. Yes, people outside of Usenet have noticed that some acronyms and initialisms are used redundantly, and have written about it. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The expression is not notable enough to be in the WP encyclopedia. However the general information (it was an interesting read) could be merged with articles on related topics.Borock (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Which is a rationale for merger, for which the correct boldfaced word is "Merge". Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A common mistake in English, but this is just a jokey term for it that has not caught on. Hairhorn (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Except, of course, that it has, as can be seen above. And even if Jacques Vallée didn't exist, your argument is about the title, which is a problem fixable with the page move tool, not the article. It doesn't take all that much imagination to think of redundant acronym as an alternative title, for a world lacking Jacques Vallée. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Except that this entry is both about both the name and the phenomenon (also, the phenomenon isn't that noteworthy,.... and "redundant acronym" isn't an entirely accurate term for it, it's not the acronym that's redundant it's the usage. Anywhooo....) Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Read the point made again. You haven't grasped it. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Other sources, found through [http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?um=1&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22RAS+syndrome%22&cf=all this Google News search], include at least a little discussion of the term in The York Dispatch, the Windsor Star, and Electronics Weekly. In my library database, I also found a brief discussion about it in The Times (Dec 6, 2002, p. 41). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and add sources. Although usenet and email groups are not reliable sources, the New Scientist and other news media are. The article currently cites the Windsor Star; additional sources such as those mentioned by Paul Erik and Uncle G, above, should be added. Cnilep (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Cnilep (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Merge, most likely to tautology, as suggested by Chris Cunningham (below). The phenomenon is certainly talked about, but the term "RAS Syndrome" isn't, at least beyond the New Scientist (who created it) and Windsor Star (who report that the New Scientist created it). If the other sources (such as Electronics Weekly, cited above) are added with something more concrete using the term RAS Syndrome to talk about the phenomenon then I'll change to a Keep, but if the RfD goes in that direction then I hope the article would get Userfied or Merged rather than actually deleted, as the phenomenon is undoubtedly notable. ClickRick (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reply: With the exception of Garner, the LINGUIST List, and uk.games.video.dreamcast, all of the current references use the phrase "RAS syndrome". (That last source seems problematic as a RS, by the way.) Cnilep (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Names can be fixed by ordinary application of the page move tool, that you yourself, like every other editor with an account, have. This discussion is an AFD discussion, and Articles for deletion is, as the name states, about whether an administrator should use the deletion tool, and the application of deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• If I had been aware of an alternative name for the phenomenon and had reliable sources to back it up then I would have suggested it. As it is, I only knew of the name PIN Number syndrome and that was only through usenet, so that failed the WP:RS test. I note that other sources have now been added but will need to verify them before I can change my reply. ClickRick (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable phenomenon, with no more common name than that proposed by New Scientist. Powers ^T 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We should improve sourcing and expand notable subjects, not delete them. For proof of notability, see Uncle G's comments above. If the article's title "RAS Syndrome" is not the most widespread term used to describe this phenomenon, then that should be discussed on the talk page, and the article moved, not deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: What I am saying is that the phenomenon is well-enough known, but that there is not yet a commonly-used term for it. RAS Syndrome was invented by New Scientist, and PNS (PIN Number Syndrome) has been used informally for a while (e.g. [http://backbytes.computing.co.uk/2006/04/pretentious-moi.html backbytes, Computing, 26 April 2006]), but there just aren't enough references to support either of those terms, or any other, unless the ones added by Cnilep check out. ClickRick (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Those are issues that happen often. A possible solution is to spell that out in the lede, there is not a widely accepted term for this but __ and __ are commonly used. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Endorse everything LinguistAtLarge says. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and sourcable, the issue of renaming does not need to be solved here. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to tautology; this is a mere instance of that subject and there's little more to be said. Simply saying "this is notable" isn't an argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have changed my vote (above) in line with this. The term RAS Syndrome is a neologism, and there is (as yet) no better-known term for it, meaning that there was no simple page move which would be any better. ClickRick (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Entirely agree with LinguistAtLarge. DaveChild (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as above Horselover Frost (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.