Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wittertainment

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, a spectacularly bad idea for an article. WP:NEO, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, contains pejorative language about Mark Kermode, plenty of other problems. Abject nonsense on a stick. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wittertainment

Wittertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. Unverified fancruft. 0 ghits [1]. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Embarrassingly, this article has been read out live on nationwide UK radio [2] Listen from the 15min mark. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should stay. It is not a dictionary entry per se but catching a modern trend. To delete the article would be an act of cultural vandalism. - J Manterik, 06:53 3 February 2007. — 80.43.87.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Whereas leaving it would be an act of literal vandalism. I would suggest reading some of our policies and guidelines. In particular "Verifiability", "No Original Research" and "What Wikipedia is not". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Protologism. ShadowHalo 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense, and I speak as a fan of the Good Doctor (which is what brought me here, hearing this nonsense read out on the podcast of his show segment). --Calton | Talk 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This should left as it is. Both Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode are aware. When this was read out on the air both of them were pleased with the phrase. It etymology has been verified. -- User:ANON 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.115.66.150 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I heard the program (sorry, programme), and "disbelief" and "amused at nonsense" would be more accurate descriptions of Mayo and Kermode's views. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is a comic article. The fact that it was read out on Radio 5 is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's ambitions to be taken seriously. And I speak as another fan of the good dr. Dogville 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. At best, this is a neologism with no clear definition from a single radio program. --Metropolitan90 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism - it's an obvious hoax that has been used as a vehicle to propagate itself. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - despite claims made above, this page is neither a hoax nor vandalism. The term was self-referenced and validated on BBC Radio 5 Live (Feb 2 2007). Heycos 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because something can be confirmed to exist doesn't mean an article about it is automatically not a hoax or vandalism. The tone of this article makes it quite clear that this is intended as sophomoric vandalism, and not to document the subject in an encyclopedic way (which isn't really possible to begin with, given that this is simply a protologism).-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not only is it a hoax, it also violates WP:BLP. Unless of course you can find reliable sources to verify that Mark Kermode is indeed a "barrel-chested former Queen's gardener". -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I thought that was "barrel-chested former Queen's Guardsman". --Calton | Talk 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this is unverified nonsense without context.-- danntm ^T _C 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Legitimate word-coining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.222.177 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To sum up the relevant sections of WP:NOR, WP:NOT#DICT, WP:V, WP:NEO and WP:NOTE in one sentence: "Wikipedia is not for coining words". -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:51, 5 February 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.