Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek license
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 Naconkantari 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geek license
Delete. Non notable meme; crufty-licious WP:NEO --- RockMFR 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete on the grounds of WP:NEO. --Tarret 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTABLE and above. Hello32020 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Would require a lot more references to convince me. (Anyway, it's self-explanatory; you'll never see it out of context.) --Masamage 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO Computerjoe's talk 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Masamage; realistically, no one's ever going to say "My geek license has been revoked? What on earth is a geek license? I need to look that up on Wikipedia!" IOW, the article is worthless. --Hyperbole 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:NFT. I've already put it into BJAODN, so this will be immortalized.-- danntm T C 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable internet meme. THE KING 07:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per THE KING It's a notable internet meme! Let's keep 'em all! Collect them all kids! That's what Wiki's for. It's for internet memes, oh, and crap, and pokemon, and toys, and crap, and TV, and crap, and commercials. Let's shut down AfD and CSD and PROD, fire the administrators and watch this thing implode! Thank god Wiki won't last another five years. Billy Blythe 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per obviousness and above users' comments. Wickethewok 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - definitely notable - over 100k Google hits for this and its synonyms - and since when was "obviousness" a reason for deletion ? Gandalf61 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe Wickethewok was referring to WP:SNOWBALL, as in the case of most neologisms. And I'd like to know the search terms you used to get 100k, I get 218 unique Ghits off of geek license --Roninbk t c e # 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got over 100k hits searching for "geek" and "revoke" to capture the synonyms. That count could be inflated by crud, so here is a more precise breakdown : "geek license" 4,660 hits; "geek licence" 194 hits; "geek card" 10,300 hits; "geek pass" 416 hits; "geek credentials" 15,100 hits; "geek status" 30,200 hits. That's a total of more than 60k hits. Gandalf61 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can any of those hits be turned into references? If not, doesn't this become OR? --Masamage 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got over 100k hits searching for "geek" and "revoke" to capture the synonyms. That count could be inflated by crud, so here is a more precise breakdown : "geek license" 4,660 hits; "geek licence" 194 hits; "geek card" 10,300 hits; "geek pass" 416 hits; "geek credentials" 15,100 hits; "geek status" 30,200 hits. That's a total of more than 60k hits. Gandalf61 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe Wickethewok was referring to WP:SNOWBALL, as in the case of most neologisms. And I'd like to know the search terms you used to get 100k, I get 218 unique Ghits off of geek license --Roninbk t c e # 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- weak Keep because I tend to be an inclusionist. Found this article while rolling the dice and I've seen weaker articles than this survive an AfD. JubalHarshaw 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is an article on a newologism. Per WP:NEO we require secondary sources about the neologism. None are in the article, none are introduced here. Deletion is therefore the right answer. GRBerry 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Have now added three examplees from media sources to the article - a Mac programming text book, a New York Observer article and a BBC article. Yes, I know they are not secondary sources about the phrase, but are we really saying that a term that the BBC was using five years ago is too new and unusual to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia ?? Gandalf61 09:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have also added a secondary source reference from Urban Dictionary to the article. Admittedly UD is borderline as a secondary source, but it does have some quality control; recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources did not reach a consensus on excluding it as a reliable source; and there is precedent for citing it as a secondary source in Wikpedia - see race traitor, fashioncore, emo. Gandalf61 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that general opinion is usually that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it, which is the same reason that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. GRBerry 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have also added a secondary source reference from Urban Dictionary to the article. Admittedly UD is borderline as a secondary source, but it does have some quality control; recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources did not reach a consensus on excluding it as a reliable source; and there is precedent for citing it as a secondary source in Wikpedia - see race traitor, fashioncore, emo. Gandalf61 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. With primary sources or not, there is no reason for this meme to be considered "notable". If you can get a secondary source, add it to Wiktionary. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If it meets WP:NEO, move to wikitionary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, UD is not a reliable source, even if the editor trawling on the Reference Desk tried to set it up as such. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 7 October 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.
