Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterface
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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Butterface
Slang dicdef. Nothing much to add, there. Might be a candidate for a merge to a list of deorgatory terms, but such a list is arguably a violation of [[WP:NOT anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep(new vote below), clearly used:[1][2] and we've got even a category for articles like this: Category:Pejorative terms for people.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)- First: That's a category that has serious WP:WINAD problems, and doesn't form a strong basis for defence of any article. Second: Urban Dictionary, that you cite, is not a source, since its stated mission is in part to accept and to promote things that people have just made up. Third: It is Wiktionary where arguments that a word is in use are relevant. Here at Wikipedia, we are writing encyclopaedia articles, not dictionary articles. Fourth: You point to a Google search, but you do not actually cite any sources on the subject of butterfaces. If you want to make an argument for keeping that is not full of holes, please cite sources. Cite sources that discuss the concept of a butterface. Demonstrate that there is in fact a concept here for there to be an encyclopaedia article about. Uncle G 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- First: The fact that the category has had problems is not interesting, since it apparently was decided it should stay. Second: The fact that the category currently contains >100 articles is interesting, since apparently we do have articles describing terms like these, which also makes it irrelevant that Wiktionary has an article on the subject. Third: other references describing the term: [3][4][5]. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got the idea that "it was decided that it should stay". There has been no such discussion at all. And whether you find it interesting is irrelevant. The category still does not form a strong basis for the defence of any article, because of its WP:WINAD problems. That we have a lot of articles that flout the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not change that policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the dictionary.
As for the purported sources that you've just cited, the first doesn't discuss butterfaces at all; the second tells us that in the real world they don't exist; and the third is Everything2, which is as useless for verfiability purposes as Urban Dictionary which you cited above, which gives a (pretty poor) dictionary article on a word, and which doesn't discuss the concept at all and thus provides no basis for writing an encyclopaedia article about butterfaces. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Uncle G 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Guess I should have said allowed to stay rather than decided to stay to make the point. In situations like this, the category should be up for deletion first, the individual articles after that. The presence of such a category at least suggests that such articles have a place in Wikipedia, regardless of any previous discussions. You've convinced me with your more thorough analysis of the references though, so I also vote delete now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got the idea that "it was decided that it should stay". There has been no such discussion at all. And whether you find it interesting is irrelevant. The category still does not form a strong basis for the defence of any article, because of its WP:WINAD problems. That we have a lot of articles that flout the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not change that policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the dictionary.
- First: The fact that the category has had problems is not interesting, since it apparently was decided it should stay. Second: The fact that the category currently contains >100 articles is interesting, since apparently we do have articles describing terms like these, which also makes it irrelevant that Wiktionary has an article on the subject. Third: other references describing the term: [3][4][5]. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- First: That's a category that has serious WP:WINAD problems, and doesn't form a strong basis for defence of any article. Second: Urban Dictionary, that you cite, is not a source, since its stated mission is in part to accept and to promote things that people have just made up. Third: It is Wiktionary where arguments that a word is in use are relevant. Here at Wikipedia, we are writing encyclopaedia articles, not dictionary articles. Fourth: You point to a Google search, but you do not actually cite any sources on the subject of butterfaces. If you want to make an argument for keeping that is not full of holes, please cite sources. Cite sources that discuss the concept of a butterface. Demonstrate that there is in fact a concept here for there to be an encyclopaedia article about. Uncle G 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article cites no sources about a concept of a butterface, and I can find no sources about such a concept. There are sources on a contest named "Miss Butterface" run by Howard Stern, but that information belongs in the articles on him or his shows (just as the information about the Howard Stern Film Festival is at Howard Stern Show#The_Howard_Stern_Film_Festival). There is no way that an encyclopaedia article can be written here that (sans original research) won't be anything other than a perpetual stub. The place for writing about the word is wikt:butterface, which has existed for 15 months. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, yet another word with a history and with wide use. A look on Amazon books gives me 4 relevant references, both fiction and non. Google Books takes it a step further, including Urban Dictionary's book. Obvious keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary is not a source, for the reasons outlined above. And your don't say what books that search on Amazon are "relevant references". I don't see any books there that are about butterfaces. Please actually cite some sources when claiming that sources exist, rather than giving a search link that turns up completely irrelevant books such as The Art of the Playwright: Creating the Magic of Theatre some random novels such as Midnight Hour Encores, and nothing about the subject at hand at all. Uncle G 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary's book certainly could be, actually. As for the Amazon link, it worked when I linked it last night, I don't know why it isn't working now. When I get home, I'll figure it out. The term has wide use, can easily be sourced and expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary is not a source, for the reasons outlined above. And your don't say what books that search on Amazon are "relevant references". I don't see any books there that are about butterfaces. Please actually cite some sources when claiming that sources exist, rather than giving a search link that turns up completely irrelevant books such as The Art of the Playwright: Creating the Magic of Theatre some random novels such as Midnight Hour Encores, and nothing about the subject at hand at all. Uncle G 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is Not An (Urban) Dictionary. -- GWO
- Delete: It's a single, albeit commonplace, joke. It has unofficial currency but needs no explanation. If someone wanted to have a "neologisms of the Howard Stern Show" section of Howard Stern, that would be a fine place for this, but there is absolutely no way that a person who hasn't already heard the joke and therefore knows it will be typing that into the search box and looking for this. I.e. this is the same rationale as is used for deleting jokes in a movie: you have to have seen the movie to search for the joke, and when you see the movie, you know the joke. Wikipedia is not a place for people to do their impression of Chris Farley saying, "'Member when, um, the truck exploded? That was awesome." Geogre 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, this isnt really encyclopedia material is it? Maybe if you wanted to include this article in the article about Howard Stern it might be a bit more relevant, but i dont think it is worthy of its own article, as said, This term might look better in an urban dictionary. (Neostinker 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
- Delete per nom. Valrith 21:32, 27 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.
