Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masturband
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/keep. Stifle 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Masturband
Contested PROD. Mentioned in a magazine article, but still non-notable. Current entry is simply a dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A single mention of a neologism in a magazine piece. -Will Beback 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- As noted, mentioned in a magazine article as sourced in the article [1]. It isn't a neologism as much as an actual thing that is part of a greater movement. Do not delete, but rather keep and expand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not stopping you from expanding it, if that's what you think should be done with it. I just don't see how notable the idea is of wearing a rubberband around one's wrist to indicate that one is "master of one's domain." I think if it's not expanded after seven days of deletion debate, it's likely never to be expanded and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 03:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- By nominating this for AfD, you're pretty much saying you don't believe that it can or should be expanded. I disagree. I personally don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads, but a need for expansion isn't a reason for deletion. I know you don't think it's notable, but media mentions tend to disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've spent time searching, but there is no more information avaialble with which to expand it. We've said all there is to say, until such time as someoene else writres an article about the topic. Is a single, short, magazine article sufficient to make this a notable neologism, even if no one else has ever used it? -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is size a deletion reason? If it is, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I'd find it hard to believe that nothing else will come of this, given its current notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Size is not an issue in AfD, just notability. What notability are you referring to? Aall I could find was one article a over a year ago, with a few bogs reacting in titillation. I can't imagine that the original proponents are still advocating for it, but if they have no one has reported on it. No manufacturer is known to be producing them. No church group is handing them out. It was a fad limited to three guys who managed to interest an editor enough to get mentioned in a short "man-bites-dog" piece in the Rolling Stone. -Will Beback 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying that things discussed in RS are no longer notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- If something has only been mentioned once, a while ago, in an small piece in the RS, then no, that is not sufficient to make it notable. If there were other mentions in the RS, or in other publications, then it might be notable. -Will Beback 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, you voted to "keep and expand". Can you expand it? I'm interested in what else you can add. -Will Beback 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads. Regardless, the answer to a somewhat short yet notable article is to keep it and expand it in any way possible, and not delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you've read the RS article you know as much as anyone, because that's all there is to know that has been published. -Will Beback 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads. Regardless, the answer to a somewhat short yet notable article is to keep it and expand it in any way possible, and not delete it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying that things discussed in RS are no longer notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Size is not an issue in AfD, just notability. What notability are you referring to? Aall I could find was one article a over a year ago, with a few bogs reacting in titillation. I can't imagine that the original proponents are still advocating for it, but if they have no one has reported on it. No manufacturer is known to be producing them. No church group is handing them out. It was a fad limited to three guys who managed to interest an editor enough to get mentioned in a short "man-bites-dog" piece in the Rolling Stone. -Will Beback 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is size a deletion reason? If it is, then maybe I'll reconsider, but I'd find it hard to believe that nothing else will come of this, given its current notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've spent time searching, but there is no more information avaialble with which to expand it. We've said all there is to say, until such time as someoene else writres an article about the topic. Is a single, short, magazine article sufficient to make this a notable neologism, even if no one else has ever used it? -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- By nominating this for AfD, you're pretty much saying you don't believe that it can or should be expanded. I disagree. I personally don't know enough about the movement to make any decent inroads, but a need for expansion isn't a reason for deletion. I know you don't think it's notable, but media mentions tend to disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. While not all that notable, it is real and verifiable, and Wikipedia is not paper. I won't be wearing one any time soon, though. dbtfztalk 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep and expand, per above. --TBC
??? ??? ??? 04:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep per Dbtfx. It is a dicdef, but one that you are not likely to find in any dictionary. --Samuel Wantman 06:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - and expand, as per per above!--IceflamePhoenix 07:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, it exists alright, but can't find much except the mentioned source article, blog entries talking about that article and copies of the wiki text. Might be better just mentioned in the 'Modern abstinence movements' part of Sexual_abstinence Gu 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wtf? Eusebeus 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and expand per Dbtfz. --Terence Ong 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete er at best merge into some "Wristbands" article. This is just not notable enough for an article in itself and seems to be a very local phenomenon in the US. Celcius 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep As long as this is verifiable. So it is something local? Interesting idea. Expand if possible. Editdroid 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)+
- It's impossible to expand. Beyond the one short article (and a couple of blog comments abuot the article) there is no further information. If we could do a follow-up with the original proponents that might be interesting, but it'd be original research. -Will Beback 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Normally one article in a magazine is not enough in AfD, based on previous discussions. But I guess I'll give this one a shot. Grandmasterka 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable human symbolic artefact. Fishhead64 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Non-notable. Slowmover 17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified with reliable sources cited. Stifle 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- As verifiable, reliable sources are cited, does that mean your delete will change? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. --Khoikhoi 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting concept and relevant to recent wristband craze. Chadley99 06:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dic def with no potential for expansion. Also not notable -- such wristbands exist for almost every viewpoint and lifestyle imaginable. Worthy of a mention in Wristband, but not for its own article. GT 22:24, 5 April 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.
