This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CyberAnth (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 7 January 2007 (→[]: Delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:12, 7 January 2007 by CyberAnth (talk | contribs) (→[]: Delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Prairie Muffins
Delete. Textbook case of non-notable neologism. The "Prairie Muffin Manifesto" is hosted on a homeschooling mother's website, and "Note: If you have something you would like to suggest for the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, email carmon...". What fun! But not a reliable source. All other sources are blogs and quizzes ("Are you a Prairie Muffin?"). It looks like the article's author has worked very hard on this, and commentors at Talk:Prairie Muffins have raised doubts about verifiability, but the author couldn't come up with any further support. Time to move it off Misplaced Pages, back to the blogosphere. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes the sources are blogs and other websites. But unlike most of the non-notable neologisms we debate here it is in lots of blogs and web sites. So it seems to be a real web word. Here is even a site making fun of it . I think we keep other words used mainly on the web. This one seems to have caught on.Obina 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:RS? It doesn't matter how many blogs and quizzes and chain letters and friendship bracelets it adds up to. Not a single one of them is a reliable source. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Forgot my other thought. Perhaps the manifesto site itself meets WP:WEB and we should make the article about the web site if consensus is to delete this page as is. I forget how all that alexa stuff works.Obina 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is not even the remostest chance of the website meeting WP:WEB. If it did, then it would already meet WP:RS. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:V. I could find no reliable sources for this. A regular google search didn't show anything, so I tried searching some more topical sites, such as The Christian Science Monitor and National Home Education Research Institute. I still drew a blank. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Artw 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not assert notability, is not notable (not the same thing nessisarily) no reliable sources, pure Neologism. Wintermut3 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I have tried to find a legitimate source but I can't. Mallanox 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - But give me a day util I get the info into Wikctionary where it more properly belongs. I am the author of this page and created it as a noob before I had a good grasp of WP content policies. HOWEVER, I suggest you all apply the same standards to a few more of the sexual slang/neologisms I nominated for deletion. CyberAnth 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)