Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghetto bench

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghetto bench

Ghetto bench (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Original research with no reliable sources on not notable slang term yielding just 218 Google hits [1], part of which are on totally different subject - system of segregated seating for Jews in Poland's universities before WWII (See Ghetto ławkowe). Adds nothing of encyclopedic value to already existing bench press article. M0RD00R 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nominator. M0RD00R 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The name of the article (in plural) is being promoted by the above nominator somewhere else for strictly political purposes which is totally unacceptable as possible reason for deletion. The content of the article, similarities notwithstanding, relates to a notable subject in North American popular culture. Article creator. --Poeticbent talk 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The term ghetto bench is used in electronics as well, which has been mentioned in the article already. Such usage seems established enough to warrant its presence in Wikipedia, even if only in a form of a stub at present. Providing that this is a neologism as suggested by User:Bfigura, our article on neologism informs us also that: "Neologisms are by definition "new" (...) The term "neologism" was itself coined around 1800; so for some time in the early 19th century, the word "neologism" was itself a neologism." I'm sure that additional sources of information can eventually be found. --Poeticbent talk 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please consult WP:NEO. Also notability must be established by reliable sources. In this case slang term with just hundred or so Google hits and no reliable sources is totally non-notable and certainly not a part of POPULAR culture. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every slang term. M0RD00R 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not asserted by the article and, as nom mentioned, adds nothing of encyclopedic value to bench press. One can create a slang term for anything homemade by prefixing "ghetto" to it (See Jury rig). JFlav 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. I'm not turning up anything I'd consider a reliable souce for this via google. If we can't verify it, it needs to go. Bfigura (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, vague "merge" if it can be fit into the description of the main article - but it really sounds more like a Urban Dictionary fit. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per JFlav and Bfigura. I can't see why this article should stay. GlassCobra 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very vague and hardly notable. See Do it yourself for DIY in general.-- Matthead discuß!     O       08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Not enough reliable resources, also seems to be neologism. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 22:20, 27 October 2007 (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.