Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Truck

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 debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck Truck

  • Delete, completely unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that a slang phrase used by some students to describe the bus that transports students between Wellesley College, Harvard University, and MIT is encyclopedic. Besides notability concerns, much of this (brief) article consists of original research: i.e., "It is widely shared perception among Harvard amd MIT male students that Wellesley students are eager to have sex because Wellesley is a females-only institution." -- as a Wellesley alum, I agree that this perception probably does exist among students, but I really can't see how this could be cited using an acceptable published source. Delete. Catamorphism 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--Wikipedia is not citeable in any case. This term is popularly known and used and the entry is valid. Why make entries editable by any one if you're going to try to take them down single-handedly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.222.40 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy so that you can understand the policies of Wikipedia. Catamorphism 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--seems to pass the requirements of objectiveness and verifiability. keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.19.140 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense-notable. Although a published topic, it is not one of notability, an unfortunate mistake for the aforementioned publishers. --ZsinjTalk 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't believe that this qualifies as nonsense according to the CSD. It's coherently written and somewhat accurate -- the problem is that it violates WP:NOR and is not notable. Catamorphism 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting me. I have edited my previous vote. --ZsinjTalk
  • Keep, has been noted in reputable publications. Bad ideas 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Neutralitytalk 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and nn.Blnguyen 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable to me. Mikker ... 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete despite being excessively vulgar (which I know is not grounds for deletion) also refers to a relatively localized term with little or no value to persons outside of the Wellesley/Harvard/MIT circles. Either delete or include a small note about it on the respective schools trivia sections. Batman2005 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will remove the offending language that implies original research. Although this seems to have a narrow reach, by standard measures of notability this qualifies. Do a google search -- you will find many, many results. Also, you will notice that I have cited this article rather extensively. One of those citations is from a national publication that published an entire article about issues of secuality at Wellesley and discussed the fuck truck. I did not post this as a joke or to be offensive. The fact is, if this was a post about, say, a faculty exchange program between the two schools that (for some reason) had been discussed in the national press and was extremely well known to essentially all students at both schools (I am a graduate of one of them), and thus was at least as encycopedic as a school fight song (we have an extensive list), there is no way that this would be up for deletion. The fact is, this discussion is occurring because someone is offended. But, of course, the fact that something causes offense makes it no less notable. Wikipedia should contain encyclopedic or not, and I have made it my mission to post challenging information (see my userpage for a discusson of what I am up to). Please focus on the notability of this post and not the fact that you may be offended by it or find it silly.Interestingstuffadder 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't find this article offensive, and no one else who commented here said they found it offensive. One person said it was vulgar, but that's not the same thing as being offended by it. And yes, I would also probably AFD an article about a Harvard/Wellesley/MIT faculty exchange program. That sort of thing would belong in the article about Harvard, Wellesley, and/or MIT. Catamorphism 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Although offense has not been explicitly stated, I have to suspect that it underlies the attack on an article like this. Or if not offense, a general instinct to be hostile to entries that seem vulgar or humorous, which may be justified as such qualities are frequent touchstones of vandalism, but I think we all can acknowledge that whatever this is it is not vandalism. The fact remains, these are three institutions that have an extremely prominent role in our society. Perhaps that is why the Harvard Lampoon, the Harvard Crimson and numerous dormitories at Harvard (see Dunster House) have well established wikipedia presences while, having followed similar deletion debates, it seems that college humor magazines, newspapers, and dormitories are often challenged as non-notable. Also, may I ask again why college fight songs (see For Boston) have any place on Wikipedia when something like this entry, which has documented national notability does not? Interestingstuffadder 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please, can we assume good faith and not try to read all sorts of secret intentions into people's actions? In addition, if you think that the college fight song articles, or any other articles, are non-notable, you are welcome to propose them for deletion. "There are other non-notable articles on Wikipedia" is never a good reason to keep an article. Catamorphism 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Let's be clear; I was not calling into question your good faith in particular. I am just pointing out a pattern I have noticed -- provocative or "vulgar" articles seem to draw quite a bit more scrutiny than similarly notable non-provocative, non-vulgar articles. Also, my point about those articles is that they are notable, as evidenced by the long-term consensus regarding their existence that is apparent in that some have been up for a long time, these articles are frequently edited by experienced users and (as for the fight songs), new articles in the same category frequently pop up. Also, thank you for your excellent edits to this article. As pointed out below, this article's quality now stands out. Interestingstuffadder 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd like to say redirect, as it's main importance is to the culture of those two schools, but I can't find any reason to prefer redirecting to one school over another, so Keep it is. I hope no-one would disagree that this should be mentioned in the schools in question. I've added a mention of it to their articles, in any case. And if this is deleted, I'll move the content into one article or other. (probably Wellesley, I guess) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This post implies a good justification for keeping this as its own article -- this relates to three seperate schools and would probably have a place on any of their pages...it is simply more efficient to keep this as a seperate page and link to it from the schools' pages. Interestingstuffadder 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think merging it into Wellesley College is fine. It's a bus run by Wellesley, I'm not sure why there's any ambiguity about which school it's most relevant to. Also, if the article is kept, I would support renaming it to "Wellesley College Senate Bus" and creating redirects for "Fuck Truck" and "Senate Bus". Making "Fuck Truck" be the primary title for the article is rather POV, since it implies a primary purpose for the bus that not everyone would agree is its primary purpose. Catamorphism 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: the problem with renaming is that this a case where the 'official' name is far, far less well known than the colloquial name (it certainly hasn't been mentioned in the national press), and thus the less notable name. Also, whatever form this article takes (including if it is merged into something else, although I remain opposed to it...I imagine that if we merge this into the Wellesley page there will be a natural revert war), the term 'fuck truck' and the sexual connotations of this service needs to be a part of that final form, as this role, though admittedly not the bus's only role, is what makes this service notable. Interestingstuffadder 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently notable. I tagged it for cleanup shortly after the author created it; I would have sent it to AfD if I didn't think it had a chance of being a passable article. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vulgar and non-notable. Also appears in yearly Harvard Student Agencies publication, The Unofficial Guide to Life at Harvard. Must everything that has been published appear in Wikipedia? Ikkyu2 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Rename per Catamorphism. --Allen 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable Avi 01:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and vulgar. That said, Wellesley College does not have any information on student life. Cedars 02:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and inform submitter that it might be best directed to Urban Dictionary. Haikupoet 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Talked about in notable publications and a notable part of student life for these notable institutions. Notable info such as this- with notable references and written in a notably encyclopedic manner for a notable online encyclopedia- should never be tossed out like yesterday's no longer notable and quite notably leftover spam.-- JJay 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You won't get the "most notable Barnstar for most uses of the word 'notable' in a sentence" that way, sir. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Wellesley College. Things like the Harvard Lampoon have significance and notability beyond their own university, but it's hard to see how university buses would. Schizombie 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename and include the slang term in the article. Maybe I'm betraying my age, but when I hear the term "fuck truck" I assume that a van (or pickup truck with a cap) with a matress in back is being referred to, nothing to do with Wellesley College. Crypticfirefly 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Do Not Rename: this is notable, as evidenced by widespread media attention and the statute of these institutions. Do not rename for reasons mentioned by a poster above -- this is not notable simply because it is a bus rinning between these insitutions but because it has taken on a life as its on as the "fuck truck"...if it were simply the senate shuttle (or whatever it is called) it would most likely not be notable...it is the fuck truck that has attracted so much attention. Captaintruth 04:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not rename, largely for the same reasons as per Captaintruth; it's a good thing I waited to chime in. This article is already at the 99th percentile of journalistic quality around here, and it's still just a stub! Melchoir 06:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I have edited the article to add some information, I still think that it should be deleted and the content merged with Wellesley College. At this point, I don't think the article qualifies as original research anymore. Catamorphism 08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Don't you fear that dropping this into the Wellesley article (which at this point is not a particuarly long or detailed article) would incite a battle there? If you think this information is notable enough to be included on the Wellesley page (and it has become far more indisputably notable and has become a nearly-excellent short article because of your fine additions), wouldn't it make more sense to let it keep its own page as a pragmatic response to what would inevitably happen to it if added to the Wellesley page?Interestingstuffadder 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: We can't predict the future. If adding this to the Wellesley page caused an edit war, that would have to be dealt with using the usual policies for dealing with an edit war. The question to be resolved is whether this topic is notable enough to deserve a separate article. If it's not notable, then "adding it somewhere else would cause an edit war" doesn't justify keeping it. Catamorphism 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: True, we cannot predict the future. However, we are to the point here where there is no clear consensus for deletion. Many of the "Keeps" are from experienced users. I am sure that even you can admit that even if this article is not notable (and I believe that it is, just to be clear), that the numerous media references combined with the stature of the institutions means that this article is at least close to the grey area between notability and non-notability. Perhaps the difference between us is that I do tend to be inclusionist when it comes to wikipedia -- if something is in (or even near) this grey area I tend to lean towards keeping it. That said, acknowledging the expressed will of many experienced users and the fact that there is at least some ambiguity as to this article's notability, what will really be lost by erring on the side of inclusion and keeping what has become, largely through your own efforts, a quite well written and well researched article? Interestingstuffadder 03:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of local slang. Try Urban Dictionary. -- GWO 15:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: But this is not merely local slang. It is slang that has been discussed in national and regional publications. It is slang that exists because of a basic issue facing single-sex college education. That is, although this term originated as local slang, its notability and ramifications have clearly (as shown by the multiple credible sources cited in this exceptionally well-cited article) transcended those origins. Interestingstuffadder 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am a current student at Harvard and the term "fuck truck" is familiar to the majority of undergraduates (if not all). If you asked us where to catch the Senate Bus, you would only get confused stares. Additionally, the "fuck truck" is widely known amongst college students in the greater Boston area excluding Harvard and MIT and may be a good resource for people who want to learn where the term originated. If the information is incorrect or bias, then people will edit it. I'm new so I don't understand this whole "No original research" thing. It seems that many other entries at Wikipedia should be deleted if we strictly followed this rule. Pbui 03:52, 14 February 2006
Comment I think we're past the no original research point already. I don't think I've seen any other Wikipedia article of this length containing this many references. Interestingstuffadder 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Pbui, "many other entries at Wikipedia should be deleted if we followed this rule" is an argument for nominating those "other entries" for deletion (or for improving them so they don't contain original research), not for keeping an article that violates policies. However, as I said above, this article is no longer original research. I still believe it's not notable. Catamorphism 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Although I agree with Catamorphism's point about Pbui's original research point, let's be sure it is clear that this is not the user's only argument. The user also provides firsthand evidence of widespread notability among most students in America's leading "college town". Interestingstuffadder 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As of yet, no one has presented any evidence that any significant percentage of people outside Massachusetts have heard of the "Fuck Truck" term. Catamorphism 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: In fact this evidence has been presented. Everyone who read the Roling Stone article -- that is, everyone who read an article in one of the highest-circulation national magazines, has heard of the "Fuck Truck". Either way, it is unclear to me why you are implying that the opionion of numerous experienced users who have voted to keep aren't enough to indicate no consensus for deletion and thus wrap up this debate just because arbitrary evidentiary standards you propose (eg unfamiliar outside of Mass, which doesn't seem like a particuarly useful line for notability since so many people are educated in Mass and fan out across out country and world) have not been met. Interestingstuffadder 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How many people read that Rolling Stone article and considered the Fuck Truck notable, and still remember it, I wonder? I can't get past "so what" about this: so a bus was nicknamed the "Fuck Truck," so what. Have any notable people begun relationships because of this bus? Any notable people conceived as a result of its runs? Sure, people educated in Mass. have gone on to live in other places, but how many would bother to mention the Fuck Truck in those other places? As buses go, it's no Furthur. One of the most notable buses, the No. 2857 bus doesn't even have its own article. Will the "Fuck Truck" be in a museum someday, like those two? I doubt it. Fuck Truck isn't even as notable as Short bus IMO. Schizombie 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia and it's important to avoid systemic bias, like assuming that something that people in a particular part of the US may have heard of is important to the rest of the world. As Schizombie said, being mentioned in a national magazine is not a sign of notability on its own (I could pull the latest issue of Rolling Stone off my shelf and make a list of 100 things mentioned in it, most of which wouldn't be notable). I'll respect whatever consensus that this deletion debate comes to after the full five days. Catamorphism 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a very localized slang term, and borderline campus-cruft. If it is kept, it should certainly be moved to the official name given for the bus and Fuck Truck should be a redirect. --DDG 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Why delete and rewrite. Why not just rewrite? If I am not mistaken, this mention of other fuck trucks seems to debunk the notion, discussed above, that the fuck truck phenonenon is limited to Welleslty/MIT/Harvard. Thus, this speaks to more widespread notability as a shared concept among American college students. Interestingstuffadder 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Note I went ahead and added this user's information to the article. Apparently the argument that this is a localized Boston term was unfounded. Interestingstuffadder 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, now it went from not notable to not notable and also containing unverified information. This strikes me as a slang dictionary entry that is straining at being encyclopedic. Schizombie 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm..isn't constant improvement a mark of Wikipedia? Where else do we require that an article be 100% complete in order to be kept? Are the standards for avoiding deletion that strict? We did add need citation tags to these terms ...I am sure that the collaborative character of Wikipediua will lead to these references coming out of the woodwork...I may even track them down if I get a chance. Either way, this still doesn;t look like a consensus for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's notable regardless of whether the term is used at one or five or twenty colleges, except for a slang dictionary. Lacking references for additional uses doesn't help its case for survival, and yet tracking them down doesn't strike me as particularly worthwhile. The usage seems more common in conjunction with porn sites or as someone else noted above, 1970s vans. And even including those things...I still just don't see how it's encyclopedic. Some people said add it to Urban Dictionary. Actually, it's already there http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck+truck Schizombie 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite (move to Wiktionary?) per Choster. It has to be a fairly common term. I hadn't heard of the MIT-Wellesley fuck truck but there's one between UC Berkeley and Mills College and probably anywhere else where there's demand for such a thing. Phr 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn term [1]. PJM 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: of course a google search for these general terms will return a bunch of trash (an inevitable result of having the word "fuck" involved). Do a more specific search...even just add in the word "college" and you will start seeing difference. All of the 10 references for this article (pretty exceptional for an article of this length, I might add) were found through google. Interestingstuffadder 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[2]. I'm still not impressed; sorry. Incidentally, if this actually was a widely used term, my first Google search would've returned more examples of specific usage. PJM 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I respect your point of view . Either way, as I said above, at this point there is clearly not currently a consensus for deletion anyway. Interestingstuffadder 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As I do yours. Cheers. PJM 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. --DanielCD 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, protologism. Ifnord 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"'Delete'", not notable and a stereotype imposed upon the character of all Wellesley Women. Very offensive. Vote by User:149.130.224.66 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment:offensiveness is not a valid basis for deletion

Delete or cleanup. I'm a student at MIT and am familiar with this term and its connotations and can attest to its existence and whatnot. However, I feel that the present article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if the title was changed to a less colloquial term, with "Fuck truck" included as an "also known as". The article could use some cleanup. Isopropyl 06:07, 18 February 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.