Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bosh

Neologism or vanity. Or simply nonsense? At least non-understandable - and something "indefinable" has no place in a encyaclopedia. andy 11:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Surely it is vain to say a word cannont be defined. "Bosh" is commenly used britsh slang and it has the right to a definition. Who are you to question this? dan
    • This user has so far only edited Bosh and this VFD, with a total of 7 edits at time of count - User:Morwen
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, User:B0sh. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Im not saying wikipedia is a dictionary, true bosh has been defined, by we are also trying to communicate it place in society, and that it is part of the make-up of uk lifedan
  • Very Weak Keep but only after wiping everything there from the face of wikipedia and salting the earth. It does in fact appear that "bosh" is a bit of English slang here's the definition. It also does not appear to be very "neo", purportedly used since 1834, according to this. And as both of the image links at the bottom of the page may indicate, of some provenance in graffiti circles. That noted, the number one google hit [1] for "bosh graffiti" is talking about a graffiti artist with the tag "bosh". If there is more demonstration of its relevance, I'd be happier. brenneman(t)(c) 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to fiddle, which it's a Romany word for. Just like in the old song,: "Can you kil the bosh?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to) have dictionary definitions, so it's not that we don't like "bosh" in particular. Delete. Morwen - Talk 12:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bosh is a term in common usage throughout the UK, especially the North East of England, so it's place in Wikipedia is only right and proper. Andy
    • This is this user's first and (so far) only edit - User:Morwen
  • Whilst there are secondary exclamatory uses of "bosh!", albeit not as described here, it's primary sense (ironically, given Ahoerstemeier's question above) is indeed synonymous with nonsense, as per the Book of Bosh (a re-titling of Edward Lear's Book of Nonsense), for example. Aaron Brenneman is right about salting the Earth. However, my vote is the same as it was in March. Revert. Uncle G 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Dcarrano has made the very good point that this is also a surname. I therefore change my vote to Keep if rewritten as a conventional name disambiguation article (with the normal interwiki links to both Wiktionary articles) disambiguating Chris Bosh and nonsense. Uncle G 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bad dicdef Dunc|☺ 15:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Keep the dab page. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you call for deletion of something you blatantly do not understand. Bosh is a multi-faceted term, synonymous with the student community of the England. It is not only a positive expression, but an outlook on life. Andy
    • Users 2nd vote on this topic. You can only vote once! - User:Morwen
    • This is pretty clearly a comment. You can comment all you like! (But it's good form to start with the word "comment".) - brenneman(t)(c) 04:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a comment now Check the edit history. Morwen - Talk 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't throw a hissy-fit about it Morwen. Andy
    • Redirect per Dcarrano. royblumy 02:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig, because of the multi-use of the word, as per Dcrrano. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not "nonsense", but i see there is some grounds from disambig
  • Keep !!!! Just because the Deleters have not yet understood or participated on a conversation on which the word is used, does not give them the right to kill it prematurely. The definition according to the creators was given, the word usage is clear, examples of said usage are also given, and the promise that the word could and is spreading rapidly among users is clearly shown! what else is expected? it is not a random, non-sensical word! it has a cult following 5 years old and deserves a chance. BOSH! (MIMI13)
    • Mimi13 (talk · contribs) - potential sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 19:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Surely simply saying "User's first edit" is a better demonstration of faith? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The definition according to the creators was given, [...] and the promise that the word could [...] spreading rapidly among users is clearly shown! — In other words, this is original research, an invention made of whole cloth, in violation of Wikipedia:no original research policy, that a group of students is attempting to use Wikipedia to spread, in violation of the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a word in BE e.g. "bosh! - job done", however the ultrarubbish that is in this is utterly deletable. -Splash 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That's one of the secondary uses that I was thinking of. I've looked for an etymology for it, to put into Wiktionary:bosh, but haven't yet found one. Uncle G 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Nor me. It's not among the 8 definitions the OED gives, either, which was disappointing. -Splash 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • That's yet further incentive for Wiktionary to have it. ☺ Uncle G 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article as written is part nonsense, part hoax. Since "bosh" is a word, the article could in theory be rewritten, but even then it would still be a dicdef, and so would belong in Wiktionary, not here. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I have read Uncle G's rewrite as a disambig page, but although the disambig is a lot better than it was before, but I still don't think it's necessary. I now vote redirect to Nonsense, where there can be a little note at the top saying "'Bosh' redirects here; for the basketball player see Chris Bosh." --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable slang dicdef. JamesBurns 07:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - People wishing to dismiss 'Bosh' as a meer dictionary definition are both missing the point and are out of touch with the popular culture of today. Bosh represents a way of life to many people, it is the core of a belief system and deserves to be documented as such!Aidan
  • Keep - How can people like Morwen dismiss this phrase, she is obviously a complete twat and doesn't understand the true meaning of the word. John
    • User's first edit. Morwen - Talk 09:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If bullshit is allowed in a definition so is bosh, bosh is much more than bullshit, it is an attitude,an expression, a way of life, where as bullshit as it says in the definition is "nonsense". Which all u have been labeling bosh which and saying it does not deserve a definition. If bosh should be removed so should bullshit dan
    • it is an attitude,an expression, a way of life — You've cited no sources that would allow readers to verify that. There are no sources to be cited. That assertion is pure rubbish. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Dcarrano and royblumy have mentioned a surname redirect. Zscout370, 62.252.0.7, and I have in turn suggested a disambiguation. No-one has cited sources for the article content as it stood, with Mimi13 pretty much telling us outright that it was original research. I've therefore Rewritten the article as a name disambiguation. Uncle G 10:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig as per Uncle G. Without any solid evidence of a lifestyle type word, it is merely a dicdef/slang. The graffiti, I believe is only referring to its dicdef of nonsense, see Wiktionary:bosh, and it has no encyclopedic value otherwise. Btw Uncle G, bosh is also a program bosh. ∞Who?¿? 11:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep — it's an improvement, but there's not all that much of note there. But something is better than nothing. However, I've removed Bush from see also - it has no more to do with Bosh than do Bash, Bish, Besh, or Bghjhsh. -Splash 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the improvement. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Uncle G improvements. royblumy 21:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite/disambig. Xoloz 04:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why oh why would you rather have the definition of a surname (this is an Encyclopedia, not a list of surnames) over the perfectly valid definition of Bosh, which is a widely used term and an integral part of modern British youth culture. I fear our identity is being repressed by people who would rather see the surname of an American basketball player over something they do not understand.Andy
    • It's not the definition of a surname. That is happily sitting in Wiktionary:Bosh. This form of article is a name disambiguation. It is a navigational aid, not a definition. People with the family name Bosh can be commonly referred to by that family name alone. (e.g. "Bosh, Bowen named players of the week.") Name disambiguation articles list all of the encyclopaedia articles that would otherwise, because of that common form of reference, have a redirect from the family name. Uncle G 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The actual article as written, The rewrite is fine, but it completely ignores the original definition of BOSH (yes, definition, because a definition was clearly given), If is only as a supplementary aid,ok, but emphasis should be given to the word first defined and which created all this commotion in the first place, Isnt the main purpose of this Wikipedia to introduce readers to words and definitions they are not familiar with or have heard in passing and would like more information on?? I have personally seen the word in its original context and i live thousands of miles away from its birth place, I actually came to this Wikipedia to find out more about it and was satisfied with its definition, What are future readers going to do when the word goes global and a suitable and original definition is needed? Many words have started their careers this way, deleting it now would be the equivalent of deleting "cool" in the 1940 or "phat" in the 1990's, Sure there are other definitions for it and they may seem non-sensical to first readers, but they mean something to many and eventually will be vindicated. Not knowing the word is not a valid excuse to delete it, Now you know it, use it, live it and leave it alone, MIMI13 (and no, im not a sockpuppet and yes, it is my first edit)
    • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 July 2005 actually this user's 8th edit, and moreover this user's 2nd vote in this discussion
    • the main purpose of this Wikipedia to introduce readers to words and definitions, no: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As for the stuff given in the article, it's just so much nonsense. It most certainly wasn't invented in the year 2000, it's been around vastly longer than that. The list of names at the bottom? I can barely make sense of what it's supposed to be a list of let alone why I'd be interested in them. The rewritten article, however, which the author insists on dismissing, actually tells me something verifiable (which this version does not; prove the claims in article). -Splash 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keepI fail to see how Chris Bosh has a greater right in an entry under bosh than "bosh" does. Sure he can have his own page and the two can co-exist. Its like saying 'bush' cannont deserve a definition because George Bush exists. Also you cannont label something a nonsence just because it is not used by your friends/community/town/nation, bosh exists FACT, it has a right to an explaination of its meaning, an explaination of its place in society and an explaination of its use FACT. Sure the definition is thin on the ground in places, but it will improve if we allow it to mature, by no removing it!!! It deserves to stay if not fully aleast as an disambig. dan
    • This user's 2nd vote.
    • In the rewritten version of the article, "bosh" is covered. It is covered by the link to nonsense, because that is what bosh actually is. Yes, bosh exists. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it has existed for far longer than your article claimed. Please familiarize yourself with the verifiability policy. Your completely unverifiable article, a self-admitted invention of a group of students, has no place here. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. so basically, what Splash is saying is that since the word BOSH already existed before 2000 and is already someone's name, it cannot be possible that a new definition and/or another usage can emerge? maybe the article is nonsense to some people, it seems to me that is simply stating how and why and by whom did this new way of using the word first came to be. New words appear every day, some out of the blue with crazy spellings (D'oh!) , some are simply new twists on existent words (the word "brilliant" actually means reflector of light, and im sure those who refered as something good or amazing as "brilliant" in the early days were laughed at.). Both the surname and the original definition are valid of course, but as you said, this is not a dictionary, so the new usage of the word should be given a proper stage and see what happens. No one person has the right to delete the word because it seems "nonsense " to them and deprive the general public from seeing it. that is bordering censorship. Mimi13
    • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 July 2005 UTC Who is only allowed to vote once! Dunc|☺ 20:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • i only voted once, the rest was a rebuttal. Mimi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 July 2005
        • You've voted three times 1 2 3 so far. Uncle G 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • New definitions and new usages of words matter to a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopaedia. Even were it allowed to use these projects to promulgate newly invented meanings for words, as you are attempting to do, an encyclopaedia would not be the place for doing such a thing. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the disambiguated version I see now. Andre (talk) 22:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. The original, minus the 'we love ourselves' bit... Boshing envelopes a state of mind too great to confine to a dictionary. At the end of the day, there are potentially thousands who Bosh gleefully yet fail to understand the greater concepts. Where do you look for the history of a culture? a dictionary? : ChrisBosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.3 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 July 2005 UTC.
    • This vandalism was that user's very next edit.
    • well said, it belongs in a ancyclopedia, which is more adept at trying to explain the universal truth the word implies, is more than just a word, is an attitude, and to understand it one needs to see its origins and its developement. That cannot be found in a dictionary. Mimi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 July 2005 UTC
      • There is no "universal truth" to be explained here. Bosh is just a surname, some writings by Edward Lear, and nonsense — the items listed and linked to in the disambiguation. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • nonsense. Bosh is a word used in the UK to mean "nonsense". It is regarded as excessively polite and upper-class, and so has dropped out of fashion quite a bit, but is still widely used, particularly in mocking upper-class accents and so forth. Bosch is a surname. Bosh should be transwikied to wiktionary, and the article should only redirect to Bosh the book by Lear. ~~~~ 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary has an article already, note. In fact it has two, one on the common noun and one on the proper noun. There are links to both of them in the name disambiguation version of the article and in the discussion above. Uncle G 19:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is fine as a disambiguation page. I'm sure wiktionary doesn't wish to be the VfD dumping ground. I have no idea which in-jokes we are missing here - 6th form humour? Secretlondon 08:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is already a Wiktionary entry. As to the stuff about bosh being the core of a way of life, a page containing a full write-up for that way of life would serve the purpose better. Adding such a page would be better than keeping this one. Tygertyger 18:04, July 27, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.