Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munt (alternate meaning)

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 Delete. One of the two transwiki comments gives "dictionary definition" as the reason, while the other makes note that this could be a neologism. Deathphoenix 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munt

Article fails to give any sources. Google doesn't provide any help after a cursory examination. The verifiability policy says that the burden is on the provider, so delete unless more information provided that this is not only a word in common parlance as deomstrated by reliable sources but also that it can be expanded beyond a simple definition. brenneman{T}{L} 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys sure are quick to disrespect some-one/thing you obviously know nothing about. A cursory google.. is that the basis of yr deletion request?
I've only just kicked the article off. There are many websites that refer to raves, electronic music etc... and use the word Munt or Munter like; tribeofmunt.org (a squat rave crew), muntersguide.co.uk (which is a page for ravers, events, etc...)
Nothing to do with me btw.
give articles a chance, bruv.
The word 'munter' is a fairly common word in the rave/electronic music scene - ask a raver!
tactik 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I subscribe to the idea that articles should contain basic sourced info from the start, WP:CITE. What is the point of throwing unsourced information on the Wiki? PJM 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. Dictionary definition. --Sam Pointon 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain for the time being. Unlike obvious hoaxes and vanity pieces, articles with possible value ought to be able to stay up longer than 19 minutes while the author works on it. I'm all for sourcing, but would a week be too long to see if the author continues to work on it? As of this moment it looks like a dicdef, but could be expanded. Thatcher131 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand the need to throw something on without at least one valid source. Why make it difficult for other editors to examine it? PJM 13:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
umm, not sure on what can constitute a source... there's plenty of info (I didn't realise it was a 'guilty til proven innocent type deal')... after a few seconds on google i found other sites giving definitions of munt/munter -http://website.lineone.net/~whatmakesmetick/c%20munters.html-.. but i am unsure of copyright etc... please help with constructive criticism guys. tactik 14:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also check http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munter&page=2 for additional info..tactik 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Urban Dictionary isn't genreally considered a reliable source, for example it doesn't have a peer-review mechanism. Print and large online sources (wired, salon, etc) are pretty solid ground. Oh, and try out the "reliable sources" link in my nomination, it's a better explanation than I can give. You might also try out some known "article savers" like User:Kappa and User:Tony Sidaway, they have a knack for finding sources. - brenneman{T}{L} 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary at least gives you an idea that there are people out there who use the word and know it's meaning... another urban dictionary link reveals more -http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munted
I should continue searching until I find it used by a president in his inauguration speech, yes? ;P
tactik 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some constructive advice: don't resort to sarcasm. It will hurt your case more than help it. Also, please understand that dictionary definitions in general do not warrant articles. PJM 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It was, quite obviously, just a joke. I only just found out Wiktionary existed, maybe it does belong there.tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I ain't seen a good article like this in munts --Ruby 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Certainly not used widely, possible neologisms in here. --MacRusgail 17:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable neologism. Guy 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is munted (by the more common meaning of the term). Grutness...wha? 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, the term means to be fucked up on drugs.. it has been adapted to mean broken, trashed, ugly, beyond repair, messy, etc..tactik 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You sure about that? I was under the impression that it was a north African term for broken, brought back to Australia and New Zealand by returned servicement after WWII. It's only in recent years that it's been taken over as drug-related slang. It's also a highly derogatory term in South Africa for anyone of non-European descent, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know the word, but oddly enough in none of the senses listed, and anyway, those senses wouldn't be encyclopedic. One of them is "to stammer", and the other is "to jump on a corpse until fluids come out" (Urban legend territory - is that really a useful term?) --MacRusgail 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, the word munt means to either be fucked up or to fuck things up... like stammering (fucked up speech) and the Olympic sport of corpse-jumping (AKA fucking up the deceased)... tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jay(Reply) 00:55, 21 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.