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. asilvering (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanewashing (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)

Non-notable neologism, per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: within one hour of the article creation, the nominating editor Darth Stabro first recommended the article be deleted, then one minute later added a tag suggesting the article might be improved. This seems rather incongruous to me and I recommend the editor pick a lane, as a dual-track might suggest WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that if it is to be kept, there are other things that need to be done. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Springee (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm skeptical of neologisms, but this one has clearly resonated with journalists as there's been a steady stream of sources in top-tier news as well as journalism publications over the entirety of the last month. WP:NOTDICT inapplicable as the sourcing goes way beyond basic definition/usage, and it simply passes WP:NEO. I can link to more than those in the article, but my guess is quantity of sources isn't going to be persuasive? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites, this term has been discussed by many reliable sources. What's the point of deleting an article like this, rather than working to improve upon it? Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Many more RS are commenting on this term, so it now easily passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

• This article extends well beyond a dictionary entry and so WP:NOTDICT is not a reason for deletion. For example, it covers analysis of the practice of sanewashing, not just the word (RS: The Atlantic, MSNBC), and the impact of sanewashing on journalism (RS: Poynter, NPR).
• This same RS coverage (plus others in the article) show that the concept of sanewashing passes WP:GNG in its own right.
• WP:NEO is not a reason for deletion, as it states: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." The above sources and others are discussing the history of the term (RS: Columbia Journalism Review), its place amongst other neologisms like greenwashing (RS: Poynter), the distinction between it and other terms like paraphrasing (RS: The Week), not simply using it. This suggests WP:WORDISSUBJECT.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jonathan Deamer. I'd elaborate but to be honest he said it better than I could. I'll just note that as a regular reader of policy-related media, I've been keeping an eye on this word/concept for a while now and it only seems to be gaining traction as a good shorthand for a useful concept. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd never heard of this term until today but it appears to be sourced reliably. [1] Andre🚐 01:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - notable and has been widely used Superb Owl (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Commonly used in RS. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go ahead and Withdraw given the consensus here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 19:28, 9 October 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.