I think the problem is that everyone knows what the current meaning of literature is, but that that doesn't allow for academic reference-baiting, however childi

I think the problem is that everyone knows what the current meaning of literature is, but that that doesn't allow for academic reference-baiting, however childish it may be. So now you take another meaning of the word, and find something that exceeds the previous record, et voila, a new article. When people feel cheated after reading, and argue "that isn't literature", you take the relativist position, even though you know it's poppycock. It's intellectual dishonesty.