Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crumbelievable

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crumbelievable

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Colbert cruft neologism. Being mentioned a few times on a TV show does not establish notability. Geoffrey Spear 19:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neologism is what Wikipedia is all about. It's where I go for that stuff. -- neoalec 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Neoalec, Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms: it's a place for encyclopedic information. Srose (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is where I learned what skeet means. It has good encyclopedic information that can't be found by traditional means, but it also is a good resource for current pop culture. I was surprised to not see an entry for this when I got here today. -- neoalec 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Skeet has an article because it is used worldwide and has been used for many years. However, "Crumbelievable" is only used by fans of Stephen Colbert. Many Americans do not watch Colbert's show, and it's not broadcast in multiple countries. The major two differences betwen "skeet" and "crumbelievable" are:
    1. "Crumbelievable" is very localized and only used by people who watch a certain television show while "Skeet" is used prominently in at least three different nations, by people of all social groups and hobbies;
    2. "Crumbelievable" is a recent ("neo" = "new") term and may never be used again, whereas it is fairly certain that "skeet" will continue to be used. Srose (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Colbert Report is brodcast in multiple countries...unless you country-stapo don't consider Canada a country.
• Delete per nom. -- Slowmover 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• He'll probably use it some more in upcoming shows. Just trying to stay ahead of the game. -- neoalec 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Staying ahead of the game is also know as "crystal ballism" here (basically, claiming something is notable before it can possibly be) and is forbidden in WP:NOT. Srose (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Colbert is making a joke. By taking him seriously, you risk becoming a part of the joke. Of course, if people generally take him up on the joke, then he will verify his own cultrural significance, and we'll also need an article. Until then.... -- Slowmover 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not taking him seriously. The entry is meant to be amusing too. I'm a comedian who also appreciates his humor. -- neoalec 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please tell me that wasn't something Colbert said (again) to attack Wikipedia (again)?...If it is, sounds like he's asking for fans to make articles for him. Srose (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There was no mention of Wikipedia on the show in question. I just assumed a lot of the things he says lend themselves well to Wikipedia entries. -- neoalec 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism is not what Wikipedia is all about. At least until the words are well-estanlished in their own right. DJ Clayworth 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~ PseudoSudo 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. -Steve Sanbeg 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be amusing. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quickly. +sj + 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not for things made up by Colbert one day. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with EMF, where there's already a little mention. Just because this ad campaign is silly doesn't mean that every silly ad campaign deserves to be wikified. - Maggie --70.50.79.222 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Firstly, this is clearly a stub and should not be under articles for deletion. It's a brand new article and needs to be expanded before any rash decisions are made as to its deletion status. Give the author time to expand it. - 74.237.158.41 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• this page should not be deleted, because of the comments made by Stephen Colbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.207.49 (talk • contribs)
• Strong, strong delete as original research on a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not meant to be amusing, and is not for things made up by Stephen Colbert one day. Want to make articles on random stuff featured on Stephen Colbert's show? Go to Uncyclopedia - it doesn't belong here. The tiny mention on the EMF article is enough. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Everything That Ever Happened on The Colbert Report. --Metropolitan90 05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This might make a good article when it becomes a common phrase, but not when someone on TV predicts that it will become one. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hhhahaaaahhaaaahhaaahha delete. This is a totally non-notable neologism. JDoorjam Talk 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Add a section to the Colbert Report about this and delete. Sam 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Bo_Knows Go_to_work_on_an_egg Don't_Hold_Others_Back Finger_licking_good BATBYGOBSTOPL Fred_the_Baker Taco_Liberty_Bell Miss_Helga Fahrvergnügen Also, Google search returns 13600 results for "Crumbelievable" which is statistically significant considering the uniqueness of the word. Far more results than "go to work on an egg." —- 74.237.158.41 03:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - is the above a complete non sequitur, or do you actually believe that the existence of other bad articles justifies the existence of another one? Why not get rid of AfD altogether, as a supporter of any "bad" article can simply cite the existence of Pokemon cruft as justification for anything? Geoffrey Spear 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I believe the point of the argument is that there are wikipedia stubs for advertisment campaigns and slogans, and this fits under that category. Explain how you feel this is a "bad" article because I have yet to see anyone that has done that yet without merely resorting to the emotional response the name "Stephen Colbert" evokes on wikipedia. — Robre 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Anyone who can read can verify that this term was not invented by Colbert, but instead by Kraft Foods. As such, it's an ad campaign, and not something Colbert made up. This doesn't make it notable, but the product probably has some degree of notability. The article should probably be redirected to an article on the product, should it exist (which it doesn't). Anyhow, continue to argue as you please, but do note this isn't a Colbert invention. --Keitei (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism(remember the Exicornt AFD??), Wikipedia is not a place for crystal ball gazing (remember the Planetenergy AFD??) Just because someone says that it will become a common phrase, does not mean that it will in reality

--TheM62Manchester 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is the most crumbelievable debate ever. Neoalec 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, it would seem that nobody is even reading the discussion or really cares about actually discussing this deletion. — Robre 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be crumbelievable if we kept such a thing. RFerreira 07:07, 29 August 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.