Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogeting

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 merge to Plagiarism. This seems to be the preferred Merge target. Of course, if an editor believes content from this article would be appropriate in a different article, additional Merge edits can be undertaken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rogeting

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

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

Basically, it's fake news, which is also used to promote the author. After almost ten years, this hypothetical neologism is not listed in any real dictionaries. Besides, some of the (few) Web sources actually used this article as a source. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into paraphrase. "Rogeting" is just a silly word for paraphrasis by synonyms, which is a topic discussed in several sources, for example [1][2][3]. Some of the information in the Rogeting article would be useful for starting a section about this in the paraphrase article. small jars tc 11:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unfortunately I can't see your sources because I get an error message, but if they were written after 2015, they may have become aware of this hypothetical neologism by reading this Wikipedia article. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The second one cites Inglis, 2008 for its typology of paraphrase. The first and third describe the behaviour in second language English writers, while the Rogeting article is focused on plagiarism. small jars tc 12:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @IJustNeedToMessageYou: for the first source, have you tried clicking "view all" in the Google books viewer? small jars tc 12:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Google keeps telling me I've run out of "views" (although I didn't open Google Books at all; go figure). Anyway, I agree with your first suggestion: this term could be mentioned in another article, instead of introducing it as a "neologism" in its own article. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not vastly prominent but in use and discussed: here's a paper specifically on the topic, and it does come up in the discourse [4]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this deserves the briefest possible mention over at paraphrase, of which it is a weak commercial synonym or neologism, indeed very possibly marketing hype. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need an article on every imaginable term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but to plagiarism rather than paraphrase. Started off leaning keep, since there's popular press coverage and journal article mentions. Looking closer, the popular press don't really add anything to each other, and there's only really one academic article about it (the others are just mentions). I wouldn't be sad to see this kept, but there's not much more than a paragraph that can be written about it, and that can go in the plagiarism article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merged, should the destination be plagiarism or paraphrase? (Or possibly both I suppose)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to plagiarism, not paraphrase, as the current article is specifically restricted to the use of close paraphrasing to evade anti-plagiarism software. Paraphrasing is a much larger thing, that isn't necessarily negative (it's what we do here!) Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Plagiarism. The article relates more strongly to that topic than to "paraphrasing." Joyous! | Talk 04:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into plagiarism. –lomrjyo^talk 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is now a blocked sock of Bianbum. MoodyTourist (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MoodyTourist, while true, you have only two edits. How did you know about this AFD and the SPI case involving this editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 7 March 2023 (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.