Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin top

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muffin top

Muffin top (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Patently unencyclopedic, no reliable sources, Wikpedia is not a dictionary Stlemur 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof? How is it unencyclopedic? If this article belongs in a dictionary rather than Wikipedia, explain why whale tail, tramp stamp and love handles deserve articles but muffin top does not. The problem described by the term is apparently important enough to spawn a different style of jeans and plenty of discussion on the internet, if not scholarly articles. When a university funds a study on muffin tops, I'll be glad to add it as a reference too. Forteblast 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. The word itself is notable (word of the year, 2006), as is the cultural phenomenon. StAnselm 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. To keep an article on a neologism there must be reliable sources about the term, not just that use the term. The notion of this being the "word of the year" sounds impressive, but it was actually the word of the year in an online poll. Not quite the same thing. The argument that this phrase "deserves" an article is flawed because no topic is entitled to a Wikipedia entry, and the flaw becomes fatal after considering that the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether this one should exist. Otto4711 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are reliable sources for this well-known term such as this William Saffire "New York Times" column for example. [1]. Concept sufficiently notable and common in usage for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a relatively new term that has become widely adopted and has become a social phenomenon. I would suggest more referenced sources on its history and on its adoption. Suggestion of deletion is silly, we could all be spending this time improving the article rather the debating its deletion.--Work permit 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, note that for an article on a neologism there must be sources about it and not just sources that use it. Otto4711 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable phenomenon, notable word. plenty of sources [2][3][4][5] It may be a passing fad, but it's verifiable and notable. Otto4711, some people really like that "about it" to mean "talking about the word as a word" but clearly we can also include sources that talk about the named phenomenon, and we should if it is the primary topic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This term appears to actually exist in the public consciousness to some nontrivial degree. --Soultaco 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Excitement in the mouth. Jerkcity 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep popularly used slang term, media use has occured, deleting this just shows bias against UK/NZ/Aussie use of the English langauge. Just because you havent heard of it in your little town in the USA, doesnt mean it isnt in popular use elsewhere in the world.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Mmm. Muffins. Xihr 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as this plainly meets all relevant content policies and guidelines, WP:BIAS issues need not come into play. RFerreira 06:29, 5 May 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.