Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulling a Scotty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was merge. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pulling a Scotty
Non-notable neologism. Was prodded when called "Pulling a Scottie, but tag pulled with the comment character name is "Scotty" and you get many more links if you search for "Pulling a Scotty". True: 3,650 for "Pulling a Scotty". 'But, if you exclude "NASA" and "captainsquartersblog" (the two refs given), you discover 162 hits: meaning almost all its Google hits stem from two sources. Calton | Talk 05:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I pulled the Prod and renamed it; It's notable in real life and is anything but new... I first heard it in the late 80s in high school. I've heard it on a continuing basis (albeit not every day) throughout the aerospace industry. Lack of google hits is not proof positive that something isn't notable. It's a good hint, but can't be relied on as the only criterion. Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- You ought to know as well as as anyone else that "because I said so" doesn't cut it as a reference. If it's as common as you say it is, then logically it should haved leaked into Google, or are aerospace engineers keeping it a secret? Maybe it's not as common as you think. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is plenty of stuff which Google verifyably underrepresents. There are whole professional fields that barely show up in it. Yes, "because I said so" isn't valid as a verifyable reference. I didn't say it was, and didn't put myself in the article as a reference. "it's not in Google" is equally invalid in the other direction. Huge google counts are usually valid positive verifyability; low Google counts are a no-test. Georgewilliamherbert 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was a whole lot of words saying nothing much. Yes, "because I said so was used as a reference on this page, and your convuluted rationale about Google doesn't rise to the level of argument, merely being a collection of assertions: that "plenty of stuff" is "verifiably" underrepresented by Google, with the (assumed) conclusion that it applies in this case, along with the associated claims that low Google counts are a "no-test". You have NOT given the slightest nod in the direction of explaining why such an allegedly common phrase doesn't show up in Google other than vague handwaving about the assumed unreliability of Google, so, in short, it still boils down to "because I said so." --Calton | Talk 06:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- You failed to distinguish AfD comments from WP verifyability of references; AfD discussions do not have to meet article reference criteria, and never have. Notability can be numerically quantified, but usually is not as the research would take far too much time or be too difficult. AfD is a fuzzy logic popularity contest, in which people's personal experiences are perfectly valid input. If you intend to assert that notability has to be referenced as verifyably as article facts, then I respectfully suggest that WP editor and administrator consensus greatly disagrees. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is a fuzzy logic popularity contest, in which people's personal experiences are perfectly valid input. No, it isn't, it's a discussion about whether an article meets Wikipedia standard for inclusion, which is dependent on little things like verifiablity and notability. In other words, pretty much the same standards for writing the damned article in the first place, so no, I'm not failing distinguish anything, since there's little difference TO distinguish.
- So instead of wikilawyering -- and constantly misspelling "verifiability" -- maybe you ought to provide the tiniest bit of verification for all the claims you've been making. Start somewhere: skip all of the handwaving and offer some tiniest shred of evidence of any of the following:
- 1) "Plenty of stuff". Name three. Explain why they are "underrepresented". Explain, come to think of it, what "underrepresented" means and how something can be "verifyably [sic] underrepresented."
- 2) Explain how your examples of "verifyably [sic] underrepresented" relate to or are analogous to the subject being discussed.
- 3) Offer an actual hypothesis of why "pulling a Scotty" has a low Google count. Hint: "Google is unreliable" isn't an actual hypothesis unless you answer points 1 and 2, above.
- 4) Offer alternative verification of the popularity of the phrase. Hint: "Because I said so"? Still not acceptable.
- This is NOT rocket science. This is done here ALL the time, and attempts to dodge questions are usually viewed skeptically.
- P.S: If "personal experience" is acceptable, I'll note that I've never heard the term in the sense you claim: this makes THREE people so far to your one. That sword cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Without peeking: have you heard of the term Metacentric height? Have any of the other editors commenting here? Does your lack of having heard it before mean that the article should be removed?
- Lack of positive evidence from some set of people is not proof of negative evidence. It's one thing to argue that something isn't notable because it's poorly referenced online and only one person here has heard of it. What you're actually saying here now is much more clearly wikilawyering than anything i've said. And spelling flames are lame.
- I believe that there's actually sufficient consensus enough for someone to boldly merge and redirect the article, at this point. This discussion has become ridiculous. Georgewilliamherbert 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- You failed to distinguish AfD comments from WP verifyability of references; AfD discussions do not have to meet article reference criteria, and never have. Notability can be numerically quantified, but usually is not as the research would take far too much time or be too difficult. AfD is a fuzzy logic popularity contest, in which people's personal experiences are perfectly valid input. If you intend to assert that notability has to be referenced as verifyably as article facts, then I respectfully suggest that WP editor and administrator consensus greatly disagrees. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was a whole lot of words saying nothing much. Yes, "because I said so was used as a reference on this page, and your convuluted rationale about Google doesn't rise to the level of argument, merely being a collection of assertions: that "plenty of stuff" is "verifiably" underrepresented by Google, with the (assumed) conclusion that it applies in this case, along with the associated claims that low Google counts are a "no-test". You have NOT given the slightest nod in the direction of explaining why such an allegedly common phrase doesn't show up in Google other than vague handwaving about the assumed unreliability of Google, so, in short, it still boils down to "because I said so." --Calton | Talk 06:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is plenty of stuff which Google verifyably underrepresents. There are whole professional fields that barely show up in it. Yes, "because I said so" isn't valid as a verifyable reference. I didn't say it was, and didn't put myself in the article as a reference. "it's not in Google" is equally invalid in the other direction. Huge google counts are usually valid positive verifyability; low Google counts are a no-test. Georgewilliamherbert 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- You ought to know as well as as anyone else that "because I said so" doesn't cut it as a reference. If it's as common as you say it is, then logically it should haved leaked into Google, or are aerospace engineers keeping it a secret? Maybe it's not as common as you think. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Montgomery Scott. I don't think it justifies its own article. --Hyperbole 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Per hyperbole. I thought "pulling a Scotty" referred to Scott McClellan. Fishhead64 15:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyperbole, if that; I have never heard the term before myself. RGTraynor 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Hyperbole. BryanG 19:40, 14 April 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.
