Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blumpkin

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 and redirect to Howard Stern. Deathphoenix 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blumpkin

This article about a slang neologism created by Howard Stern to describe an act of fellatio received while defecating on a toilet should be deleted, since there's already an entry for it at Wiktionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom James084 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC) I'm going to agree with the Merge and redirect camp. James084 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The wiktionary entry is pathetic compared to this article and might be deleted, but this should be saved. The article has sources and gives the context required to understand the impact of the issue for Stern, which could have cost him his license. That's the beginning of an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry.-- JJay 20:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep preferably, or merge any relevant information to Howard Stern and redirect. It may be a minor neologism but it's important to Stern because it's the reason his station was fined. Stern cited this fine in exhorting listeners to vote against Bush in the 2004 Presidential elections. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Howard Stern Schizombie 22:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even I have heard of this term, and normally I would not encounter this in my circles --Ruby 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it earned a half million dollars in fines from the FCC, it's probably notable. Night Gyr 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a mere dictionary definition and has been ever since it was created. A previous version has already been transwikid to Wiktionary. If the Wiktionary version is not good enough, go fix it. Don't pervert the Wikipedia goal by trying to include prohibited dictionary entries. (Okay, that was a bad pun but I couldn't avoid it.) There's no encyclopedia article here and never has been. Note: I would accept a replacement of this definition with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This I don't get. Could you explain why you think an article providing this level of cultural context is a "dictionary" entry? I almost feel as if you and I are looking at two completely different articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Compare it to Truthiness; as Lar says below, how much more could be added to blumpkin? Compare also to Kid Rock and Married by America, both of which were hit with high FCC fines, but the specific incident triggering the fine does not have its own article. As I voted above, I have no problem with the whole article being put into Howard Stern (though whichever user does so will be giving him a blumpkin!) Schizombie 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with redirect I'm not sure the info currently in this article would be suitable for Wiktionary, it's encyclopedic in nature. But I'm also not sure there is enough more that could be said about this topic to justify a whole article. So merge with Howard Stern and leave a redirect, or a disambig that points to the Wictionary entry and to the section of the Stern article. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Lar -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. People should be able to go to Wikipedia to find out what a "blumpkin" is. More than a mere dicdef, due to the Stern/FCC case. dbtfz^talk 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I feel that this article should be kept for informative purposes for the multitude which are curious to practice the act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.1.220.183 (talk • contribs). and was inserted into the middle of the debate which makes an assumption of good faith difficult Deiz 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Stern has had plenty of controversial moments which don't deserve their own page and are in the body of his main article, this should definitely be no exception. Perhaps a "controversy" section on the HS page could include this stuff. ++Deiz 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: People should be able to learn about everything on Wikipedia. Not just things in line with good taste.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.10.172.239 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 February 2006.

  The question of deletion is not whether it's offensive or not (there are plenty of tasteless things on WP), but of other issues raised above such as notability. To a HS fan, it's notable I suppose. To people interested in issues of free speech and censorship and the FCC in the united states, it's of some note perhaps. To everyone else, pretty much not at all. Hence my vote above to move it to the HS entry. Schizombie 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Clear merge candidate. Not a "neologism" because it's been around a while, but as it was the first time this was debated, totally not notable outside the HS zone. Oddly, this is almost exactly the same article that was vociferously kept before. How does that happen? - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Howard Stern. Friday (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Howard Stern, not otherwise notable. Barno 21:18, 21 February 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.