Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad grimple (2nd nomination)

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 delete. As an unsourced noelogism slang term, this would likely have been an uncontroversial speedy. Given that, and the discussion below, I've deleted. Friday (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlsbad grimple

Carlsbad grimple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Original nomination wound up as no consensus; Deletion Review narrowly endorsed that result. However no meaningful improvement/reliable sources have been added to the article since that AFD, and I believe both discussions were compromised by the disruptive comments by now-banned user Billy Blythe. So I'm bringing this back to AFD for a second look. Delete as neologism/hoax. -- nae'blis 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure anything's changed between now and then, and I don't see any new reason to overturn the DRV result or the original AfD at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Jeff, do you remember the discussion we had at DRV? All evidence points to this being propagated from the Daily Show, to Urban Dictionary, and then into the web. -- nae'blis 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  I do. I've seen no reason to change my stance on the issue, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, just wanted to make sure we were still on the same page. -- nae'blis 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Do you believe there's any semi-reliable evidence for it not being created by the Daily Show then? During the DRV, you seemed to hint that if it was a Daily Show creation, that you might change your position. --Interiot 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Semi-reliable that we'd accept? Not sure. I still believe the Daily Show is enough in this instance, honestly. Obviously, that's gaining zero traction here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT for throwaway jokes made up on comedy news shows. Demiurge 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Especially considering that this page has no source except for Urban Dictionary, the Daily Show claim has been unsubstantiated since the original AfD. Also, I removed the Daily Show claim. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: The citation to Urban Dictionary and its accompanying material have also been removed per not being from a reliable source. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:RS. Hello32020 21:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's presented as a non-fiction entry, then it has zero reliable sources (as Simões pointed out, the Daily Show often mixes fiction with fact, so it's not a RS). If it's presented as a fictional entry created by the Daily Show, then it should be merged into one of those articles. (articles as long as This Week in God have been merged into the other Daily Show articles) I've combed through all ~26 Google hits [1], and they're all very unreliable sources (blog/forum entries), and all but one were very clearly created on or after the May 8 Daily Show. --Interiot 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom. --Aaron 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per sometimes removed Urband Dictionary source --Oakshade 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Urban Dictionary is user-generated, and so isn't a reliable source. A few of the entries do reference the Daily Show (and all entries occur within a week of the May 8th airing), but per above, Daily Show isn't a reliable source either. --Interiot 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• A throwaway sex joke on a comedy show is just that - a throwaway joke. There is no chance of expanding this based on current information, and you know it's just really bad when your reference is Urban Dictionary. Delete, with no (well, a little) prejudice against recreation if this becomes a notable meme. riana_dzasta 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - non-notable, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:DUMB, only gets 200-odd Ghits, most of which are completely unrelated. No need for every piece of nonsense in Urban Dictionary to wind up here. Moreschi 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom. --Freshacconci 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep To amplify my previous comment, I heard the expression used in London, looked it up on Wikipedia and noted that it was up for AfD. Hence my keep vote last time.--Poetlister 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What a world it would be were this sufficient reason to keep slang phrases on Wikipedia. Thankfully, it isn't. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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.