Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brillant

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN - after all sockpuppets ignored. FCYTravis 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brillant

Non-notable outside The Daily WTF forum. Zetawoof 08:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN It has instantly caught on with every programmer I linked to the original entry on The Daily WTF, so I think it merits preserving. Aristotle 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quite hilarious, but unfortunately not-notable. Thatdog 08:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 08:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. --Shutranm 12:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I really liked the entry, but it is true that it doesn't seem to mentioned in many places and therefore not really notable. user:Matt.whitby
• Keep SaltyPig 12:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - non-notable, but the article is well-written enough, and the subject entertaining enough, to warrant keeping it for posterity. ~ Irrel
• BJAODN Should be preserved for future generations... Cdyson37 14:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN I wrote the original article, so I may be biased. I agree that it is non-notable, but I think it warrants keeping. DZ-Jay 15:11:25, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Keep for at least three months. This phrase might catch on in wider usage as WTF membership grows and Brillant would then be submitted to Wiki again. User:aikimark
  • User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Popular tech talk often enters the more common public domain, where it is often mangled and misrepresented by media who do not understand the origins. Brillant has been very popular, very quickly and stands a high probability wider usage. It is important that such terms have a clear history of the origin of a word to prevent misuse (such as when the press used the word hacker instead of cracker, permanently destroying the original meaning of the term) xepol 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come on... an in-joke on a nn web site, with no other independent existence? MCB 18:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or BJAODN. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and I note that "brillant" has not become "very popular very quickly." FCYTravis 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in-term for one forum. Zoe 21:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does come up 486 times on Google though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2005.
  • Duplicate vote. Oh dear. --Zetawoof 02:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge as misspelling of "brilliant". Andrew pmk | Talk 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or BJAODN. If this site claims to be a repository of human knowledge, let all 'knowledge' remain as it is. Lithorien 16:51, 28 August 2005 (PST)
  • User's second edit. Zoe 04:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    
    • And that matters why, Zoe? It doesn't take a hundred edits to know the rules. Lithorien 22:41, August 28, 2005 (PST)
      • jack maneuver there, zoe. what's the point? SaltyPig 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Noting attempts to stuff the ballotbox, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
          • Check the IP addresses of the users. Don't try to throw mud in their faces for a small edit count. Lithorien 06:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
            • • Only developers can check IP addresses. But an admin who closes a vote can take into consideration the length of time that a signed in User has been with Wikipedia, and discount votes of those who have no stake in the project. Zoe 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • lithorien's first edit was august 2004. "Noting attempts" and timidly implying guilt that can't be disproved are radically different. SaltyPig 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial. --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to The Daily WTF. Radiant_>|< 07:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but BJAODN if people want it there. This sounds like an attempt to use Wikipedia to help spread this new usage of a term. WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As the original author of the article, I can assure you this wasn't the intention -- it was a misunderstanding of the policies about encyclopedic relevance. I do admit it is non-notable, but think it should be kept in BJAODN. DZ-Jay 14:56:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• Keep or BJAODN. This is a borderline case, and I find keeping it more prudent for now, after all it isn't causing much harm. R6144 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: the origin of this sarcastic term is interesting, not to mention rather humorous, and it doesn't hurt anything to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.186.184.75 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 August 2005.
• Delete. ral315 17:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -Sean Curtin 01:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that's a disambiguous page, it doesn't contain any content, it'll still need to point somewhere... DZ-Jay 09:36:59, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. The first times it was a BJAODN, but IMHO now it is a new word on its own. 62.14.177.107 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 10:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If we apply the rule that this term is not notable outside WTF, the same would apply to all the Slashdot articles in Wikipedia, which lots of people use often for understanding jokes made in ./ but otherwise are not known for non Slashdot's readers. Regards 138.100.12.136 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. No harm being done. Ytram
• Merge to The Daily WTF. If it gains significant usage outside of that forum, then recreate it. htonl 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Move To The Daily WTF - a thing of beauty is a joy forever. --Maurits 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this has spread rapidly amongst coders i know - vDave420
  • Posted by 66.134.25.19, not a registered user.
• Keep It is becomming quite the developer catchphrase. 65.240.133.194 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good write-up. And create The Daily WTF. --2mcm 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Clearly not encylopedic, but amusing and well-written. Possibly merge to The Daily WTF (which would be merited) if someone writes it. --Zootm 10:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -TNS
  • Improperly signed vote by TheNotoriousSkinny. User's first edit. --Zetawoof 07:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to The Daily WTF (of which more should be written), as it's definitely part of the site's culture. It isn't a Bad Joke, and is wayyyy too factual to be very Nonsensical, so I think BJAODN would be a wrong place. --Wwwwolf 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Changing vote:
• BJAODN, on the account that TheDailyWTF.com seems to fail WP:WEB, so moving it to an article about it would be pointless because that in turn might get deleted; they have Alexa rank around 47,000 and no apparent way to check how many registered members there are, but I cursorily only found user IDs up to around 2000. Besides, we're not exactly talking of a in-joke-spreading movement that could rival Slashdot =) --Wwwwolf 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, Mayby even KEEP. This term has swept through my my company of over 600 and is used as commonly as PHB. The tribal consensus of who was brillant at my office was quite amazing.
  • Unsigned vote by Ded.morris. User's first edit.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.