Talk:pet rock

RFD discussion: October 2016

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

pet rock

It could be argued that there is a specific sense relating to the type of rocks sold in the pet rock fad, but the sense of any rock when considered a pet is SOP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and improve the definition. This isn't covered by any sense we currently have of "pet", which specifically defines a pet as an animal; but I wouldn't want to change the definition of "pet" to cover pet rocks, either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Covered by a sense of the adjective (not attributive use of one of the noun definitions) contained in other dictionaries. (See “pet”, in OneLook Dictionary Search..) There might even be support for a noun sense of pet as might be used in a sentence like This rock is my pet. DCDuring TALK 12:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. The whole idea behind the pet rock fad was treating an inanimate object as if it were an animal. Imaginary reassignment of roles to other things doesn't mean we need to change the terms for those roles. If you really want to follow this line of reasoning, there are all kinds of references here and there to "pet humans" (not just in science fiction, either), and then there are phenomena such as the w:Tamagotchi. With role-playing games and virtual realities becoming more and more widespread in our culture, we could end up tying ourselves into pretzels trying to cover all the possible permutations. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I attempted to add a 2nd sense at pet that should be broad enough to cover pet rocks and whatnot. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think I have seen this used to describe something which provides comfort despite seeming triviality. A quick review of books provided only literal usage, but anecdotally there may be another sense which should be included even if the literal sense is SoP. Delete if the current sense is the only attestable sense. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep but clarify that this refers to the ironic act of keeping a rock as a pet, originating in the fad. I think there is some distinction to be made in the fact that one could claim that a "pet rock" picked up off the ground is not a "real" pet rock because it isn't the branded product. bd2412 T 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Weak keep. They were indeed a popular fad, and they are a specific type of thing with eyes mounted on them. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep but improve the definition. Mihia (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  I am wondering how to improve it. We could, for example, mention that they have eyes stuck on them, and that they were a short-lived popular commercial product (not to get too encyclopaedic, but otherwise people might wonder who on Earth would keep a rock as a pet). Does the given Undertale citation (cough! durable??) actually refer to the fad product, or merely to a random rock that is someone's "pet"? Equinox ◑ 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  In the video game sprite, the rock does not have eyes and seems to be just an average rock on a table. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that kind of definition fall under WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, but I don't think it would have any trouble passing from "generic" mentions. Equinox ◑ 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  But do the generic usages have the encyclopedic meaning? Perhaps, where we are defining a term no other dictionary (except UD) has covered, we should start with the citations. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd actually be genuinely surprised if pet rock was not in the OED. Sadly, the university kicked me off their free OED access last month. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• OED: "pet rock n. a small rock intended as a humorous novelty alternative to keeping an animal or growing plants; (hence) something seen as little more than a passing fad, or as pointless or useless." DTLHS (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  How insensitive: that definition will hurt their feelings. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  The OED's definition would at least not be SoP, but I would RfV it. The existing definition is transparently SoP. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak keep but improve the definition. I've encountered the term a number of times, but was unaware that this was a popular fad, that the rocks were actually sold en masse, and that they had eyes on them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely SOP. It doesn't matter if you put sticks on it. You could say the same thing about having a pet toothbrush. You could attach sticks on it for ears, and a button on it for a face. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose so. I've changed my vote to a weak keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this not the "fried egg" scenario? Any egg that you fry could be a fried egg, but in practice the meaning is narrower. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kept; I have adjusted the definition to indicate that this is a novelty item used with humorous intent. bd2412 T 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)