Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTSHTF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 consensus points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to reliable published sources.

There is no consensus here to move the article to Wikitionary. However, that does not mean that an entry couldn't be started on Wikitionary independant to this. - Daniel Bryant 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTSHTF

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
WTSHTF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO and FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • WTSHTF is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on WTSHTF and got 6,490 entries. Then I searched on SHTF. It had 88,600 entries! Thus, these acronyms do NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0651 PST, 12 march, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • The "reliable source" factor is not what is at issue here, Arichnad! The meaning of this acronym is undisputable, so sourcing would only be an issue if the entry delved into the origin of the acronym. I cited the sheer number of Google hits on WTSHTF andSHTF to illustrate the POPULARITY of the acronym. If those numbers don't constitute common use, then you had better go through the Wiktionary on safari and start posting PRODs on several hundred *existing* wiki acronym entries for acronyms that are downright obscure, compared to WTSHTF and SHTF.
  • I still vote to RETAIN this entry. - Jeff Trasel, 1557 PST, 12 March, 2007


  • Delete. Move to wiktionary at best. - grubber 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not even wiktionary material. HagenUK 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I read the replies to this vote but I stick to my Delete. If these acronyms are important to survivalists, they can be merged into their articles as a table or similar. HagenUK 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO, the key issue here is notability. I brought up the Google count as a useful data point in that regard. Clearly, those of you that have chimed in with "delete" votes would not have done so if you believed that the acronym was indeed notable. In some circles, such as survivalism and libertarian politics, WTSHTF and SHTF are widely known and regularly used without a second thought. Both the root phrases and their respective acronyms also seem to be more popular with certain age groups. I mean absolutely no disrespect by this--and please don't take it the wrong way--I'm merely making statement of fact. In essence, people that went to college in different decades are immersed in a distinctly different mix of popular culture icons, cliches, pet phrases, slang and so forth. This doesn't mean that any particular decade was/is better or worse than any other decade--it just means that the collective experience for each decade was different. As a data point, I went to college in the early 1980s. That was shortly after the comedy movie "Airplane" was released. (In 1980.) One of the most memorable jokes in the film included the phrase "shit hit the fan." Pardon my rambling, but I'm trying to relate--in a polite way--that there are generational differences that color perceptions and evalutaion of terms vis-a-vis relevance, popularity, and notability. Perhaps some other wiki editors would like to chime in on the notability of SHTF and WTSHTF, so that we can reach a wider consensus. I look forward to hearing from you, and will accept the consensus view with all due humility. I appreciate your input, folks!
- Jeff Trasel, 1938 PST, 12 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • I vote to retain. These are common terms used in groups to include firefighters, LE, other emergency response and by disaster planners. I saw the phrase used post 9/11 and Katrina to describe devastation and overwhelming loss. Deleting this because individual(s) are unfamiliar with its use appears narrow and arrogant. I consider this project a tool to expand knowledge and common understanding, not to limit it. — EJayB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I vote to retain, its a WELL KNOWN acronym all across the USA, Europe, Australia and S. America. were about information and knowledge here aren't we? dont be PC. wally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.25.86 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2007.
  • Comment: Trasel and the recent two contributors may want to read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We need actual sources for an encyclopedic article. If the article creator means this entry to be no more than a dictionary definition, as his comments above (regarding usage being the issue, not sources) seem to indicate, then this entry belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. —Carolfrog 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote to retain, as First Responder and Cert. Emergency Planner, the term is used quite frequently TheRanger223 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)TheRanger223
  • Do you know of any reliable sources that back that up? Just because it is used quite frequently in your sphere doesn't mean that it has reliable sources necessary to stay on Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. Dddstone 12:00, 13 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_WTSHTF_5886.html"