Talk:Carlsbad grimple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20/9/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Unverifiable? Is this any less verifiable than cleveland steamer, dirty sanchez, or teabagging? It's straight from a daily show episode, for which a link to the video was included. What is needed in addition to several independent entries in the urban dictionary (dubious, it's true) and a daily show reference? Inclusion in one of the notorious b.i.g.'s songs (see cleveland steamer)?
Does the daily show not count as enough of a force in pop-culture? Can they not coin words? What about truthiness (and probably a handful of other words) that colbert has come up with and are now on wikipedia? Isn't that the point of wikipedia entry -- to grow as the word grows.
I know I'm an even more dubious reference than the urban dictionary, but my friends and I are from carlsbad, so this phrase has become quite popular.
Cal james 20:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I expect it is less verifiable than all the other examples you give; it certainly gets much less Google results (and none of them is from a reputable source). As for what's required - see WP:V and WP:RS, and also WP:NEO. Urban Dictionary definitely doesn't count as a reputable source, and I don't think The Daily Show does either. (The only reason "Truthiness" gets an article is because it was referenced widely, including by a number of reputable media organisations.) -- makomk 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- As DRV mentioned, the urban dictionary entry was created right after the Daily Show mention. So it's possible that Daily Show are the ones who created the word. If nobody can find mentions of this in two or three reliable sources, it should be redirected to the Daily Show until reliable sources can be found. That's far more flexible and less bureaucratic than doing through deletion and undeletion. --Interiot 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] LOL, someone got grimple'd
"It's either spectacular or deadly." This is quite funny and certainly notable; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hope the page stays around.
[edit] Carlsbad Grimple
People say it all the time back in Carlsbad...and someone not from C'Bad mentioned it just the other day to me here in Virginia...I was quite shocked. But it is gaining popular acceptance, as you'll note from the various blogs that use the term.
[edit] Bizarro war
Can we, I dunno, stop going back and forth on this? There was no consensus for a delete, the review to have it deleted failed, and there's no consensus for a redirect. Perhaps we should wait until there's no information before doing things that'll just piss people off? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article was AfD'd 31 days ago, people have reportedly been looking for other reliable sources since then, but no evidence has emerged that the term wasn't coined by the Daily Show. How much longer do we wait, especially when it's trivial for even an anonymous user to revert to the full article if any new evidence appears?
- We can try merging it to one of the Daily Show articles, to keep the information visible, though I'm not sure that it's nearly as notable as their other segments or terms, so I doubt that others would keep it on another page. --Interiot 14:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted
Dunno whether to call this a speedy or the result of the Afd, but I've deleted this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad grimple (2nd nomination). Friday (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- After two days? Very lame. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- For those who object to the timeframe, consider it a speedy. For those who enjoy Afd, consider it the result. Between the previous one and the DRV, is there anything more to be said? Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. No prejudice against someone creating a sourced encyclopedia article on this topics, but judging from google this would be impossible from lack of sources. Unsourced slang dictionary definitions are very obviously not suited for inclusion in Wikipedia. If anyone disagrees strongly enough to undo this, I won't war over it of course, but this looks like an obvious case to me. Friday (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would undo it in a moment had I the power. Just because people removed sources during the afd doesn't mean you eneded to speedy it out of process. I implore you to let the AfD run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- As pointed out in the nomination, there's been adequate time for this to improve. The moment someone writes a sourced encyclopedia article on this topic, we have something to talk about. That wasn't the case here- leaving the AFD on would only risk it turning out useless like the previous one. Those suggesting deletion have presented valid reasons for doing so. Not a single valid argument for keeping this has been presented. By "valid", I mean in line with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary clearly wasn't a reliable source. Daily Show isn't a reliable source if someone else invented the term, they're only a valid source if there's other evidence that says the Daily Show invented the term. Unfortunately, there's no way to reliably determine that (I can guess, based on the lack of other sources, and the timing of when blogs/forums started talking about the term. But guessing is original research). If reliable sources turn up to support Poetlister's claim that it's used semi-frequently in casual conversation, or to support my guess that it was invented by the Daily Show, then I'd support undeleting at that point (or at least running through a full AfD). Until then though, it's not an encyclopedia article, it's random guesswork with a total of 26 google hits (literally half of which refer to the Wikipedia article... which shows how flimsy this is). --Interiot 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Or you could cut the middle man and just run the AfD all the way through. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no middle man. Unless reliable sources turn up, it's not worth having a discussion about. --Interiot 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was one, but it was deleted during the AfD. Part of the discussion very well should have been a discussion as to how reliable the source was for this. Now we're told there shall be no discussion. Not very good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you talking about urban dictionary? You can't seriously be calling that a reliable source?!? Friday (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's referring to the Daily Show, which its creators describe as a "fake news show". While the show does discuss actual news, the fact that they interweave fact with fiction means that it's very unreliable unless backed up by other sources. --Interiot 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There could've been ZERO references, deleted or not, and there still should've been a properly lengthed discussion. I've never heard of an AfD closing early (not to mention out of policy) soley because of no references or sources on the article. --Oakshade 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability (a core policy) says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If all information in an article is challenged, and no sources are forthcoming (in this case, we waited a month), then the material can be removed until sources are provided. --Interiot 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about the material, it's about the AfD being closed too early for dubious reasons. Even the reliability of the sources was in contention and that should've been part of the continued discussion. It appears somebody was trying to prove a point. --Oakshade 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Verifiability (a core policy) says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If all information in an article is challenged, and no sources are forthcoming (in this case, we waited a month), then the material can be removed until sources are provided. --Interiot 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There could've been ZERO references, deleted or not, and there still should've been a properly lengthed discussion. I've never heard of an AfD closing early (not to mention out of policy) soley because of no references or sources on the article. --Oakshade 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's referring to the Daily Show, which its creators describe as a "fake news show". While the show does discuss actual news, the fact that they interweave fact with fiction means that it's very unreliable unless backed up by other sources. --Interiot 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you talking about urban dictionary? You can't seriously be calling that a reliable source?!? Friday (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was one, but it was deleted during the AfD. Part of the discussion very well should have been a discussion as to how reliable the source was for this. Now we're told there shall be no discussion. Not very good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no middle man. Unless reliable sources turn up, it's not worth having a discussion about. --Interiot 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Or you could cut the middle man and just run the AfD all the way through. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary clearly wasn't a reliable source. Daily Show isn't a reliable source if someone else invented the term, they're only a valid source if there's other evidence that says the Daily Show invented the term. Unfortunately, there's no way to reliably determine that (I can guess, based on the lack of other sources, and the timing of when blogs/forums started talking about the term. But guessing is original research). If reliable sources turn up to support Poetlister's claim that it's used semi-frequently in casual conversation, or to support my guess that it was invented by the Daily Show, then I'd support undeleting at that point (or at least running through a full AfD). Until then though, it's not an encyclopedia article, it's random guesswork with a total of 26 google hits (literally half of which refer to the Wikipedia article... which shows how flimsy this is). --Interiot 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- As pointed out in the nomination, there's been adequate time for this to improve. The moment someone writes a sourced encyclopedia article on this topic, we have something to talk about. That wasn't the case here- leaving the AFD on would only risk it turning out useless like the previous one. Those suggesting deletion have presented valid reasons for doing so. Not a single valid argument for keeping this has been presented. By "valid", I mean in line with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would undo it in a moment had I the power. Just because people removed sources during the afd doesn't mean you eneded to speedy it out of process. I implore you to let the AfD run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
