Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 28 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 2 October 2006 (→[]: review closed, deletion endorsed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:54, 2 October 2006 by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk | contribs) (→[]: review closed, deletion endorsed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< September 27 September 29 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

28 September 2006

Erik Möller

This article has been deleted due to non-notability, and deleted again due to CSD G4. However, it was recreated again after he got a position on the Board, and it's common conjecture that being on the Trustee of a notable corporation means you can get an article. However, Michael E. Davis, where Board member Michael Davis's article would go, redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. However, Möller is also a published author, and arguably "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (see WP:BIO). I am not sure how this should be treated (so count me as a neutral), so let's decide once and for all (for now) how to treat this article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlsbad grimple

I would like to see the "no consensus" closure of this AFD reconsidered on the weight of the arguments. There was precious little debate in the discussion, most of which centered around the term's appearance on The Daily Show and Urban Dictionary, neither of which are particularly reliable sources. The major Keep proponent, Billy Blythe, may not be taking AFD entirely seriously (although he does have some reasonable arguments in other deletion discussions). I believe Mailer Diablo erred in closing this as no consensus, as the article lacks any reliable sources, and has two Ghits excluding WP, UD and TDS, showing it as the poster child for neologisms. Rather than being "widespread enough to end up on the Daily Show", as BDJ argues, it appears that it was added to UD the day of the Daily Show episode, and spread from there. -- nae'blis 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I'm being entirely serious, even if my language is blunt. I'm being completely sincere. Please assume good faith. Billy Blythe 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as a valid AfD and without much new to say. If it was added to UD after the Daily Show, it seems to me that it had notability before it made the net rounds, since the show referenced it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeff, if you can show me evidence this existed somewhere prior to the Daily Show writers coining it in May, I will gladly reconsider this deletion review. -- nae'blis 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a chance I misunderstood the debate, seeing this question. Are you claiming the word was invented by the Daily Show? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen this episode, but what it appears to be is a neologism made up by the writers and thrown into the segment by Samantha Lee's character. It was then picked up by UD and some of the bloggers; my quick Google search didn't show anything to contradict that, but I'm using Ockham's razor, not any sort of rigorous analysis. I'm relying on your vigorous dedication to process to see if you (or anyone) can come up with evidence to the contrary, without making this a second 'content" AFD. If the suppositions made in the AFD were wrong, then it probably ought to be overturned. -- nae'blis 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm going to drop a note on Poet's page about this, as s/he claimed to have known the word in the UK. I'll be honest - my position came from the belief that the term existed before the Daily Show, not because of it, and was further emboldened by Poetlister's claim. If it turns out otherwise, I'll gladly reverse myself on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it time to start tagging articles with {{onlyoneseeminglyreliablesource}}? Or should wiktionary's attestation (usage in three independent instances spanning at least a year) be used as a minimum on Misplaced Pages for apparent neologisms? --Interiot 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, clearly this has only one root source, the article should simply be redirected to The Daily Show and leave it at that. Guy 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Also, this term is in current use, and will eventually be used even more. Themindset 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, this makes me shudder but I'd rather people know what's being talked about than censor. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. LossIsNotMore 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Wait a second, both of the sources go back to the Daily Show. This isn't a term they invented is it? Overturn LossIsNotMore 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Uuuuh.... The other Urban Dictionary entries don't reference the Daily Show, but I'm not sure the're old enough to show that the term was independent of it.... Abstain LossIsNotMore 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and redirect to the Daily Show. Google for this term omitting WP and The Daily Show comes up with a grand total of four - count'em four - Google hits. It's a made-up word, and WP:NOT for neologisms. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The closing admin made an entirely reasonable decision on the basis of the debate.--Runcorn 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The people have spoken. Misplaced Pages is mostly run by hoi polloi, whether they be bright or dull, reasonable or unreasonable. That's a built-in characteristic of a wiki. The closure was resonable and right. Billy Blythe 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. The closing decision was reasonable, but having seen the original show I thought it was a joke at the time. That all the UD entries were added within a week after the Daily Show further supports that this was coined by them. It's worth another pass at AfD. William Pietri 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist--Peta 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You're having a laugh, aren't you? I mean, really, are you just taking the piss out of wikipedia? You really think community consensus favours made-up unsourced sex moves on wikipedia Bwithh 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not laughing. I've seen several made-up poorly sourced sex moves, and I'm just following what I see. Billy Blythe 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That we have some low-quality articles isn't proof that we need more. See WP:INN for more on this. I also don't think it's proof that the community is happy about those articles. Consider Jimmy Wales's recent call for favoring quality over quantity, and the community reaction to it. E.g., WP:DC. William Pietri 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to those articles. I have some ideas for some good articles I'm currently thinking about. I'm not really interested in turning WP into a sewer. Billy Blythe 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)