Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce willis is a robot
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 of the nomination was delete. Enough sockpuppetry. Invoking WP:SNOW. Proto///type 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bruce willis is a robot
Neologism, poor citations, lack of google hits, nonsense, NN, all 'keeps' below belong to contributors with few edits, which for me raises suspicions; a few of the keep contributions are nothing less than miraculous. --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
- Comment Suspicions of what exactly? If you want to accuse me of sockpuppeting - then you need to go through the process properly. Although I did contact jcompton to find out the original source of the quote, I was by no means trying to persuade him to contribute or defend the article. I'd like to see the logs on wikipedia search, but I'm willing to bet that the term is searched for often enough that when people finally found it in wikipedia, they wanted to contribute or defend it. I believe your statement to be abrasive and totally uncalled for. I'm a newbie here, but I've tried to follow the wikipedia policies as best I can. --Terevos 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - possibly even speedy? Artw 16:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Come on, forums for references? —EdGl 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The phrase is used enough online in the internet culture to warrant keeping the article. The phrase is by no means integrated into pop culture, therefore the lack of TV and movie references, hence the use of forums as references.goatwarrior
- Note: This is goatwarrior's first and so far only contribution to wikipedia (contributions). We sure don't appreciate sock-puppets; nor would we like you to think we're fools. Au contrere. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Note: Let it be noted that I did not write the article, I simply added to the forum references.goatwarrior
- No you didn't. You have not edited the Bruce willis is a robot article at all. One of the skills of sockpuppetry is remembering from which account you did what. And you've forgotten to do this. Now as it happens, I don't give a stuff whther you are or are not a sockpuppet, nor indeed do I care much what is the outcome of this discussion. But let's just for fun look at your posting history & that of Terevos. (Oh, and btw, you asked what led to the AFD. The use of a lower case w in willis led to my interest; You've still not rectified that point.)
- Terevos arrives at wikipedia on the 5th July at15:18 (and is very welcome, as all new wikipedians are). He posts away on the BWIAR article until 16:38, when he takes a break.
- Goatwarrior turns up at 17:38, now that the article if on AF, and lasts until 17:57, when, exhausted by the effort of contributing only to the BWIAR debate, he gives in and...
- Terevos arrives back at 18.25 for the night shift.
- Next day Goatwarrior is up first, at at 13:04 to 13:43, but has no stamina, and is replaced by
- Terevos, weighing in from 14:01 to 15:02 before
- Goatwarrior takes the baton at 15:22 & 16:45 and then its back to
- Terevos, for the early evening shift of one post at 19:50, and wouldn't you know it
- Goatwarrior reapprears for two posts at 20:06
- So what you're saying is that terevos and are the same person who can deticate his entire workday and personal day to commenting on a wikipedia article. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of time. For the record, I did in fact edit the article. I'm sure the moderators can show that I came from a completely different IP than any of the other posters. (Sorry for the after the fact post, but I don't appreciate being accused of being a mule account.) --Goatwarrior 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Let it be noted that I did not write the article, I simply added to the forum references.goatwarrior
- Note: This is goatwarrior's first and so far only contribution to wikipedia (contributions). We sure don't appreciate sock-puppets; nor would we like you to think we're fools. Au contrere. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete Fails WP:NEO and probably WP:NFTDavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT WHAT I MESSED UP 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- It also might be worth noting that the 6th Sense debuted in 1999 and the forum references are from 7/02, 2/04, 2/04, and 2/05 so while it's not exactly crushing the internet it is certainly persisting. Whether you chose to delete the stub or not doesn't change the fact that is used. goatwarrior
- Keep. Let me address the concerns that have been stated by the moderators.
- 1. Neologism: Although it might be able to be classified as a neologism, it's more like a colloquialism. As stated by goatwarrior, the Sixth Sense was out in 1999 and it continues to be referenced throughout the years.
- 2. Poor Citations: Yes, there are not very good citations, but I would argue that it's because of the nature of the phrase itself. It's used when in the middle of a conversation about a movie, you find out that someone hasn't seen it. That situation is very unlikely in even forums and would be totally inappropriate use of the phrase in any kind of website. It is not a net friendly phrase. However, wikipedia is not just about net friendly or written word friendly articles.
- 3. Lack of google hits: please see number two.
- 4. Nonsense: I may be biased because I'm the author, but I've tried to make the article as well written as I could. It was not written with any ulterior motive. I used the phrase in conversation with some people who didn't know what it mean - I said look it up on wikipedia, it's probably there. And lo and behold, it wasn't. So I wrote it hoping that others would contribute.
- 5. As you can see by the forum post links, I did not make up the phrase, I'm simply reporting on it because it is a piece of history (ongoing).
- 6. Keep in mind this is a colloquialism, so just because you may not have heard of it, doesn't mean it's not true or doesn't exist. How many of you use the term Ansible or have even heard that word before? I think that 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is used far more than that particular colloquialism. --Terevos 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dunno, Terevos. It always helps to have Frank Herbert, Orson Scott Card, Elizabeth Moon, Vernor Vinge, L.A. Graf, Dan Simmons, and Philip Pullman in your corner. And yes, it is a well written article & not nonsense - apologies. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Keep. I have added what to the best of my knowledge is the origin of the term to this article. (Disclaimer: I was not involved in the creation of the article, but my post was one of those cited as a reference to the term.) As for the "lack of search hits" on the term, that was actually a source of frustration to me as I tried to piece together where I'd read the thing in the first place, since the Old Man Murray article doesn't seem to be readily findable on a reasonable sort of "bruce willis robot" query. It was only by blind chance that a friend, who had heard my lament about how my Sixth Sense viewing experience was corrupted by this bizarre bluff spoiler, stumbled upon it and filled in that gap in my memory. So I would put to the "delete" crowd that the lack of ready explanations for the term is in fact a good reason to keep it available in WP. --Jason Compton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.46.179 (talk • contribs)
- You've come to Wikipedia with the wrong idea of what this project is. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia, not to be a repository of information that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. If there is a "lack of ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia may not have an article, since having "ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia is a fundamental requirement of everything here. The place to publish primary source material providing the original history of an idea is a scholarly journal, a magazine, or one's own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a primary source for such terms as Sock Puppet and Protologism. --Goatwarrior 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong, as can be seen by the fact that you hyperlinked to Wiktionary, not to Wikipedia. Uncle G 12:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a primary source for such terms as Sock Puppet and Protologism. --Goatwarrior 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've come to Wikipedia with the wrong idea of what this project is. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia, not to be a repository of information that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. If there is a "lack of ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia may not have an article, since having "ready explanations" outside of Wikipedia is a fundamental requirement of everything here. The place to publish primary source material providing the original history of an idea is a scholarly journal, a magazine, or one's own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - neologism, lack of sources other than forums. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a place to provide popularization for something like this. The proper route is: it becomes well known, it becomes documented, it gets a Wikipedia article. Tony Fox (speak) 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- A neologism is something that's 'new'. This phrase is over 6 years old. This isn't popularization, I'm not trying to increase the use of the term, simply to report on what it is. It is well known by the people that use it. It is well documented on many forums and it will never be used in anything but forums because of the nature of the term. I'm not sure what the problem with the use of forums for colloquialisms is. Where else are you going to find phrases that people say to each other in that kind of context? --Terevos 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable phrase (neologism/protologism). Let it catch on first; document it after major newspapers start using it in movie reviews. Not when a handful of people use it in a chat forum. Weregerbil 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that Weregerbil does not seem to understand the proper usage of the term. Otherwise he would not have suggested to wait until newspapers start using it in movie reviews. The term is primarily a speech-only phrase. Proper usage of the term prohibits it from being used effectively in written form, which is why there is a small amount of net references to it. --Terevos 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Weregerbil--Nick Y. 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Weregerbil above Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete After six years you can describe it as a failed neologism, but it's still nn. Everything that gets used a few times in a forum does not deserve an article. Fan-1967 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ansibles are a notable type of communication device used in a lot of fiction by credible SF writers (notably Card). This is an obscure and unverifiable phrase. Distinguish a coined word used widely to speak of a specific concept to a one-off phrase or inversion of an existing one, or merely adding a Latin root to an existing word. SM247My Talk 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, because if I, a total non-entity, were to post this phrase once to any old random forum anywhere on the internet, I would be increasing this phrase's entire verifiable global circulation by about 10%, and I would not be diluting the notability of its pool of adopters one iota either. Which makes it an obscure nothing, in my book. Sorry. --DaveG12345 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I never heard of it. And in the case of neologisms, that should be enough. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Earlier in this talk session, I was accused of being a Sock Puppet. If you follow the link to the wikipedia article refering to internet sock puppet, you'll find no references other than a single usenet that references the term. Other than that, the article has no other reference to the term. Having been on the usenet for many years, I have never heard this term before, but it is nonetheless used by a handful of people on the net. I'm not saying by any means that we should delete the Sock Puppet article at all, I'm simply wondering how it slipped through the sensors. After all, according to weregerbil, if it were an actual term, shouldn't it be documented in a major news paper? Anyways, it's just something to think about. (For the record, I am not a "sock puppet".) --Goatwarrior 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sockpuppet is notable in that sense anyway because Wikipedia uses it. SM247My Talk 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand the point being made above per Goatwarrior. "Sock puppet" gets rather a lot of Google Group hits, and a glance at these shows these are most often in the internet sense of the phrase. "Bruce Willis is a robot" gets rather fewer hits. So the subject of the article under discussion is unnotable because, um, there's no evidence anyone's using it. There's lots of evidence that "sock puppet" is widely used in the internet sense, so it's notable. Even the LA Times has quoted the phrase in one of its stories. If the article doesn't reflect that fact with enough references, then feel free to clean it up. --DaveG12345 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The LA times article doesn't use the term sock puppet in the same way defined by the wikipedia article. The LA Times article is not refering to a mule account or anything internet related. I do plan on doing the proper research to legitimize the sock puppet article, I just have yet to find what this forum refers to as a legitimate reference for this term. As to your claim that sock puppet gets more hits than 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is because the term sock puppet is a multi-purpose term for more than just a mull account. Whereas the phrase 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is not static and it's usage may vary. For example, you can say, 'So in the end, Bruce Willis turned out to be a robot', 'So, anyways, Bruce Willis ended up being a robot', 'So it turned out that Bruce Willis was a robot'. The phrase being a partial sentence is bound by English tense and a variety of circumstances. --Goatwarrior 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Put sockpuppet on AFD if you wish. This discussion is about BWIAR. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Comment If I went out and marked all the neologism and primary source articles for AfD, that would be against the WP:POINT policy. The discussion MUST include talk about other articles and about the policies themselves if you really want this to be a fair proceeding on AfD. So the discussion is not just about BWIAR, but about all colloquialisms, since they rarely have a primary source outside of wikipedia. (See Badonkadonk and Sock_puppet_(internet) for starters. I can find a whole lot more if you'd like.) Personally, I've never heard the term 'Sock Puppet' used like the wikipedia community does - therefore, according to your interpretation of the neologism guidelines, I can justly put that up for AfD. But that would be disruptive and I would argue totally against what Wikipedia is all about. --Terevos 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What can be called "primary source" articles is debatable, but if you went out and marked all the neologism entries for AfD, you'd find a whole bunch of people thanking you, and lining up to vote Delete. Fan-1967 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with terevos. Other articles definitely come into question when applying the same rules and the same logic. In applying the same rules to this article as we do other articles, how can we ignore what else is out there? We don't live in a vacuum and we most certainly do not want to ignore how the wikipedia rule apply to other articles. A mass proposed deletion of a series of other articles is not the answer.--Goatwarrior 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If I went out and marked all the neologism and primary source articles for AfD, that would be against the WP:POINT policy. The discussion MUST include talk about other articles and about the policies themselves if you really want this to be a fair proceeding on AfD. So the discussion is not just about BWIAR, but about all colloquialisms, since they rarely have a primary source outside of wikipedia. (See Badonkadonk and Sock_puppet_(internet) for starters. I can find a whole lot more if you'd like.) Personally, I've never heard the term 'Sock Puppet' used like the wikipedia community does - therefore, according to your interpretation of the neologism guidelines, I can justly put that up for AfD. But that would be disruptive and I would argue totally against what Wikipedia is all about. --Terevos 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Put sockpuppet on AFD if you wish. This discussion is about BWIAR. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Comment The LA times article doesn't use the term sock puppet in the same way defined by the wikipedia article. The LA Times article is not refering to a mule account or anything internet related. I do plan on doing the proper research to legitimize the sock puppet article, I just have yet to find what this forum refers to as a legitimate reference for this term. As to your claim that sock puppet gets more hits than 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is because the term sock puppet is a multi-purpose term for more than just a mull account. Whereas the phrase 'Bruce Willis is a robot' is not static and it's usage may vary. For example, you can say, 'So in the end, Bruce Willis turned out to be a robot', 'So, anyways, Bruce Willis ended up being a robot', 'So it turned out that Bruce Willis was a robot'. The phrase being a partial sentence is bound by English tense and a variety of circumstances. --Goatwarrior 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Weird, I came to wiki today to find out what the heck this even means - One of the guys at work used the phrase today and I didn't know what he was talking about. Now I know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatsicle (talk • contribs)
- The article comprises an explanation of the usage of a phrase, coupled with a list of external links to people using it. There are no sources cited, and there's no indication that this phrase has been documented in any secondary source material anywhere, either in the article or in this AFD discussion. Searching, I can find no such secondary sources. This is first-instance, primary source, documentation of something that hasn't been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, and is original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source. The place for this sort of work is elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If that is seriously Wikipedia's official policy, there are a whole lot of articles that are currently in Wikipedia that are 1. Primary source and 2. Neologism. Shall I start putting them all up for AfD? No, because people look to Wikipedia for all kinds of information. Is it hurting anyone to have Ansible or Badonkadonk or Sock_puppet_(internet) on Wikipedia? Should those entries be in Wikipedia even though they are Neologisms and/or primary source articles? I would argue they should be in Wikipedia. The primary source thing is to prevent falsification, not to prevent colloquialisms from being entered into Wiki. --Terevos 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "primary source thing" is part of the fundamental goal of this project: to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Editors who believe that Wikipedia should be a primary source have come to the wrong project, and should look elsewhere for a project whose goals match theirs. This project's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. You'll also find that, in stark contrast to this article, there is secondary source material describing the concept of an ansible. There is certainly plenty of source material describing puppets made from socks (not least shelves full of children's activity books in bookshops). Articles on either subject can be written from sources. Articles on this subject cannot. Articles on this subject are original research. Your comparison is wholly flawed. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've read the Wikipedia guidelines on primary source. It doesn't apply to articles like this one. It's primarily referring to actual research on scientific data. Ansible is not a primary source article, you're right, but it is a neologism. Badonkadonk is both primary source and a neologism. And you're looking at the wrong Sock_puppet_(internet) article. The one I referred to is about a pseudonym account. That article is both a primary source and neologism. --Terevos 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm confused. You say you have read the policy (not guidelines) on primary sources? Then you will have read the section of WP:NOT policy that prohibits: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." Does the "defining terms" and "coining new words, etc." not apply here somehow? I rather think it does. The policy is in no way restricted merely to "research on scientific data". Sorry. --DaveG12345 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The purpose of 'primary source' is to prevent unverifiable articles and disputes. As you can see from the multiple links given in the BWIAR article, they all use the phrase the same way. There is no disagreement on how the term can be used. Shall we start getting rid of all what you consider to be 'primary source' articles in Wikipedia? Maybe we could start with Sock_puppet_(internet) and Badonkadonk? Just because the article says 'References' doesn't mean that those are referring to 'reliable sources' as you define them. Again, please address how Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk are different than BWIAR. Why are those valid articles, but this one is not? And don't tell me to put them up for AfD, because that would be against WP:POINT. --Terevos 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, first of all, I'm glad you seem to have dropped the opinion that WP policy on primary sources doesn't apply to this article because that policy is restricted to "research on scientific data". That was my main concern here. I hope it's clear now that primary source policy is eminently applicable to this article.
The difference I feel that exists between the current article and the others you cite is this: first, AfD is not cleanup. Second, I am confident that if I had the time to sit down and research either of the topics you name, I could come up with enough reliable third-party sources to satisfy any future, projected AfD for them. I base this view on the fact that those articles deal with subjects that, when all the evidence available to me now is weighed up, seem capable of demonstrating a usage outside of a handful of unreliable third party sources. BWIAR, on the other hand, does not fill me with such confidence. That's a judgement call that each WP editor here is making, including me, and including yourself. That's why those articles do not belong in AfD IMO - if they were placed here, editors would be mobilised to defend the articles, as editors are mobilised here to defend this one, and I feel sure the result would be a keep in those cases. That's all. My opinion is an opinion, but it is not one just plucked out of the air. If there was anything here, or anything "out there", that made me confident that BWIAR merited a WP article, then let me assure you that I would make that belief known here. --DaveG12345 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So basically it doesn't come down to WP policies of whether something gets placed on AfD, it's more of just how the Wikipedia editors 'feel' about a particular article. If AfD is not about cleanup, then why was BWIAR placed in AfD immediately after its creation, rather than giving it some time for other contributors to add what is needed. In time if it couldn't comply with the complaints against it, then put it on AfD. It's not like its presence is harming Wikipedia or anyone else. --Terevos 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Of course it comes down to WP policies, haven't I stated this clearly enough? " My opinion is an opinion, but it is not one just plucked out of the air." Please re-read my comments if in any further doubt. You have time in the five days of AfD to clean this up and convince us all that the BWIAR article does not constitute primary research of a neologism. Good luck with it, seriously. As to why this is in AfD, ask the nom. It certainly isn't here for any bad faith reason that I can see. I am merely dealing with this AfD now that it's here. As should we all. --DaveG12345 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I have read your comments. And it appears that you are implementing the Wikipedia policies strictly here, but not for Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk and many many other Wikipedia articles. If it were true that Wiki does not accept colloquialisms and neologisms which are primary source on Wikipedia, there would be a whole lot less Wikipedia articles. So essentially, it's left to how you 'feel' about BWIAR as opposed to the other neologism/primary source wiki articles. Unless you truly believe that Sock Puppet, Badonkadonk, Corporatocracy, Prequel, Jumping the shark, Posterized, and Blaxploitation (just to name a few with very minimal effort) should all be deleted if they cannot provide primary sources outside of Wikipedia. --Terevos 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, what else can I do but implement WP policies strictly here in AfD? Other than go off and develop my own wikis elsewhere? Your argument now seems to be yawing round to imaginary questions of the "what would you do if X were AfDed" variety. I feel I have anticipated such a move, and made it clear what I would do in such a scenario. I would do exactly as I am doing now. I would evaluate the case on its own merits, then post my view, per WP policy. As would - I believe - everyone else. What more need anyone do? The article would stand or fall on its own merits. In all this time being spent debating the patently obvious, I personally can't help thinking the BWIAR article could be being properly sourced and cleaned up, assuming such a feat were humanly possible. --DaveG12345 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I have read your comments. And it appears that you are implementing the Wikipedia policies strictly here, but not for Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk and many many other Wikipedia articles. If it were true that Wiki does not accept colloquialisms and neologisms which are primary source on Wikipedia, there would be a whole lot less Wikipedia articles. So essentially, it's left to how you 'feel' about BWIAR as opposed to the other neologism/primary source wiki articles. Unless you truly believe that Sock Puppet, Badonkadonk, Corporatocracy, Prequel, Jumping the shark, Posterized, and Blaxploitation (just to name a few with very minimal effort) should all be deleted if they cannot provide primary sources outside of Wikipedia. --Terevos 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Of course it comes down to WP policies, haven't I stated this clearly enough? " My opinion is an opinion, but it is not one just plucked out of the air." Please re-read my comments if in any further doubt. You have time in the five days of AfD to clean this up and convince us all that the BWIAR article does not constitute primary research of a neologism. Good luck with it, seriously. As to why this is in AfD, ask the nom. It certainly isn't here for any bad faith reason that I can see. I am merely dealing with this AfD now that it's here. As should we all. --DaveG12345 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So basically it doesn't come down to WP policies of whether something gets placed on AfD, it's more of just how the Wikipedia editors 'feel' about a particular article. If AfD is not about cleanup, then why was BWIAR placed in AfD immediately after its creation, rather than giving it some time for other contributors to add what is needed. In time if it couldn't comply with the complaints against it, then put it on AfD. It's not like its presence is harming Wikipedia or anyone else. --Terevos 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, first of all, I'm glad you seem to have dropped the opinion that WP policy on primary sources doesn't apply to this article because that policy is restricted to "research on scientific data". That was my main concern here. I hope it's clear now that primary source policy is eminently applicable to this article.
- Comment The purpose of 'primary source' is to prevent unverifiable articles and disputes. As you can see from the multiple links given in the BWIAR article, they all use the phrase the same way. There is no disagreement on how the term can be used. Shall we start getting rid of all what you consider to be 'primary source' articles in Wikipedia? Maybe we could start with Sock_puppet_(internet) and Badonkadonk? Just because the article says 'References' doesn't mean that those are referring to 'reliable sources' as you define them. Again, please address how Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk are different than BWIAR. Why are those valid articles, but this one is not? And don't tell me to put them up for AfD, because that would be against WP:POINT. --Terevos 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm confused. You say you have read the policy (not guidelines) on primary sources? Then you will have read the section of WP:NOT policy that prohibits: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." Does the "defining terms" and "coining new words, etc." not apply here somehow? I rather think it does. The policy is in no way restricted merely to "research on scientific data". Sorry. --DaveG12345 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've read the Wikipedia guidelines on primary source. It doesn't apply to articles like this one. It's primarily referring to actual research on scientific data. Ansible is not a primary source article, you're right, but it is a neologism. Badonkadonk is both primary source and a neologism. And you're looking at the wrong Sock_puppet_(internet) article. The one I referred to is about a pseudonym account. That article is both a primary source and neologism. --Terevos 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "primary source thing" is part of the fundamental goal of this project: to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Editors who believe that Wikipedia should be a primary source have come to the wrong project, and should look elsewhere for a project whose goals match theirs. This project's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. You'll also find that, in stark contrast to this article, there is secondary source material describing the concept of an ansible. There is certainly plenty of source material describing puppets made from socks (not least shelves full of children's activity books in bookshops). Articles on either subject can be written from sources. Articles on this subject cannot. Articles on this subject are original research. Your comparison is wholly flawed. Uncle G 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If that is seriously Wikipedia's official policy, there are a whole lot of articles that are currently in Wikipedia that are 1. Primary source and 2. Neologism. Shall I start putting them all up for AfD? No, because people look to Wikipedia for all kinds of information. Is it hurting anyone to have Ansible or Badonkadonk or Sock_puppet_(internet) on Wikipedia? Should those entries be in Wikipedia even though they are Neologisms and/or primary source articles? I would argue they should be in Wikipedia. The primary source thing is to prevent falsification, not to prevent colloquialisms from being entered into Wiki. --Terevos 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious nn, WP:NEO. Batmanand | Talk 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable phrase. However, I want to state that User:Goatwarrior should never have been accused of being a sock puppet after his original posting in this discussion [1], because at that time he was the only person recommending a Keep. Calling someone a sock puppet when there is only one posting from one account involved makes no sense because sockpuppetry on Wikipedia involves trying to mislead people into thinking that there are multiple supporters of a position. Don't bite the newcomers. --Metropolitan90 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that 'not notable' is not an official Wikipedia policy, but simply an opinion held by a number of AfD happy Wikipedians. --Terevos 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment However, WP:NOTA3 is policy, as is WP:V, and many view nn as a convenient extension of these policies when dealing with, for example, suspected neologisms. To quote from WP:NN: "Notability is sometimes used as a synonym for verifiability, although others disagree. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research". What exactly is "AfD happy" BTW? "Simply an opinion"? ;-) I personally prefer to use the policy of WP:AGF within AfD. --DaveG12345 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Wanna guess what I stuck up my butt today? 71.101.237.105 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment that's just gross. Or is that some kind of new idiom too, that means something besides (1) disparaging the forum in which it is used and (2) requesting a change of topic?
- Comment at least I had the balls to sign my name. You didn't even have the balls to guess what I stuck up my butt today. Good man, you suck. 71.122.71.221 13:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment An IP address isn't a name. Fan-1967 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sure it is. Or are you discriminating against my IP culture???? The good news is that we are an inclusive society, and to join, all you have to do is shove a household object up YOUR butt, too!!! Interested? 71.122.72.186 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment An IP address isn't a name. Fan-1967 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment at least I had the balls to sign my name. You didn't even have the balls to guess what I stuck up my butt today. Good man, you suck. 71.122.71.221 13:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment that's just gross. Or is that some kind of new idiom too, that means something besides (1) disparaging the forum in which it is used and (2) requesting a change of topic?
- Delete; note that the only keep votes are anons and conveniently new users. --Tothebarricades 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep So BWIAR is the canonical example of a white lie about a movie ending. It is an idiom, not a neologism; although some wikipedians do not want wikipedia to become a dictionary of idioms, the line here is blurry; I feel that a comparison to "ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US" would be more appropriate than a comparison to "sockpuppet" which surely predates the mid-nineties. Is that page subject to deletion? AYB explains an idiom in common use. Minitrue 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (new user due to previously being anonymous only; hell yeah I'm a sockpuppet -- you want my boss should find out I'm editing wikipedia on company time?)
- Comment The AYB article includes such reliable third party sources as a wired.com article featuring the term in a non-trivial manner. Is there any equivalent verifiable third party source that cites BWIAR?--DaveG12345 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Good question. Wanna guess what I stuck up my butt the other day?? 71.101.143.118 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The AYB article includes such reliable third party sources as a wired.com article featuring the term in a non-trivial manner. Is there any equivalent verifiable third party source that cites BWIAR?--DaveG12345 18:44, 8 July 2006 (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.
