Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bingo wings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep*/No consensus to delete--JForget 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bingo wings

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

Dicdef, neologism and original research. Basically, it's a slang term for a type of pannus. It has had some cultural references, but that's about it. Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete just slang. JJL 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A fine article with notability and references. If more are needed, then try The Sun, Now magazine, Daily Mail, The Independent - national newspapers and magazines. Colonel Warden 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colonel Warden - no difficulty in establishing third-party references, and importance in popular culture to describle a rather specific form of flabbiness... :-) DWaterson 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bingo wings?! That made my day. But those sources merely use the term, they do not make it notable. So it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. i (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Two of the sources I found don't just use the term - this condition is the focus of their coverage. I can't imagine what more is needed to demonstrate notability. Since this is a British usage, perhaps you are not a good judge of the matter. Colonel Warden 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Those sources are about the condition. This article is about the term. Two different things. Reliable sources need to be found about the term. Crazysuit 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the BBC source among other things, I have been, just barely, convinced this term in notable enough. I (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • At least the BBC source is about the term, but the BBC's full coverage amounts to: "Bingo wings is the name given to skin hanging down from people's arms as they raise their hands in victory at bingo", in other words, it's trivial coverage. Crazysuit 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources about this term, only the condition the term describes, which are two different concepts. Fails WP:NEO. Crazysuit 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to the keep voters. Just because it's an interesting neologism that made it into a dictionary doesn't mean it's any more notable than, say, "disappointment" as a phrase.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not just a novel phrase; it's also a running joke in the referenced shows. And it's a medical/cosmetic condition which is of great interest to millions of women. The article on pannus does not address the topic adequately and that word was unknown to me until now. We might compare with man boobs in which the medical aspects are better developed but the social aspects are still rudimentary. A redirect like that might work but outright deletion is not appropriate. As usual, AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is jsut a term from Bo' Selecta!, but a neologism, why not just redirect there? --W.marsh 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep if it's good enough for inclusion in Chambers Dictionary BBC report, then it should have it's own article. RMHED 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Does that mean we should have an article on every word in the Chambers Dictionary? I hope not - that's not what Wikipedia is for. I say delete this page as an article about a non-notable neologism. Terraxos 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! That's exactly my point. Just because it's a neologism that found its way into dictionaries, it's less notable than most other words in the dictionary - and we don't have articles about most words, we have articles about subjects.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes more neologisms in wikipedia and less Pokemon and Manga shite.RMHED 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bingo wings is quite a widely used term, and for it not to be represented here on Wikipedia would be a travesty, especially when page after endless page of that Pokemon shite is. RMHED 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pokemon pages have been merged into lists recently, for your information. Very few articles about individual Pokemon remain. Obviously, Pikachu should remain for being the most famous, but Bellsprout has been merged.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
*Keep Common term and should be represented. KingStrato 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then be bold and write it. It's certainly an encyclopaedic topic, though perhaps a nice redirect to Depression (mood) would suffice. I'm not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is a good argument either. Oh no, actually it turns out we did have an article on that subject until you AFD'd it... Great way to make a point there. DWaterson 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Catch phrases or words that gained popularity through popular culture outlets (in this case a British TV program) are certainly worthy of an article. The Wiktionary entry doesn't negate its being notable, and it does not do an adequet job explaining the rise in popularity of the term. There are plenty of examples of catch phrases or slang terms that not only make it on to Wikipedia, but also more traditional encyclopedias, because they do more than just define the word, but describe how it came about. More importantly this term has verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources. Jacksinterweb 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources are reliable, but they aren't significant coverage. One sentence in a BBC news article isn't non-trivial coverage, which is required to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Crazysuit 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. For example, it appears in Chambers Dictionary. Kingturtle 17:47, 15 November 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.