Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namechecking (second nomination)
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 Merge to Name-dropping. Yomanganitalk 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Namechecking
Procedural. Paul Cyr (talk · contribs) proposed deletion with the {{prod}} template, but this article has had a previous nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namechecking; full disclosure: the original AfD was started by me, again after Paul Cyr's proposed deletion was reverted) and shouldn't be deleted via the prod mechanism. Notwithstanding the procedural nature of this nomination, I recommend Delete as a nonnotable neologism with no sources or references. Powers T 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- article about a man who started a company to count brand-name dropping in hip-hop radio, Associated Press article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, Detroit News article about brand-name dropping in hip-hop, article labelling 50 Cent the "biggest brand name dropping rapper of 2005", article in The Daily Trojan about companies paying rappers to drop brand names. ISBN 0313261695 has 22 pages, an entire chapter, on "Brand names in the lyrics of American Hit Songs". — The only reason that this article has stood without any citations for 6 months is that in all of those months no-one appears to have spent the 5 minutes with Google Web that I spent to find those. If something cites no sources, spend the time to look for some before coming to AFD. Do the research when nominating articles for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment please do not confuse the populace by making a recommendation in a "procedural" nomination. - crz crztalk 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If someone wants to add proper sources then I'll change my vote. However it's been over a year (not 6 months as Uncle G has said) without sources. Paul Cyr 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was counting from the first of the several times that you nominated the article for deletion. You already have several potential sources now. Go put them in the article yourself. Deletion won't do that, and it doesn't require administrator tools to improve the article in the way that you want it to be improved. You're a Wikipedia editor. Edit! It no doubt took you more time to repeatedly nominate the article for deletion all of those times over the months than the 5 minutes it took with Google Web to find what is cited above. Uncle G 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not that it invalidates your point, but do you mind telling me why you haven't simply added them yourself since you were the one who found the sources? Seems that would have been the simplest solution. And actually, after looking closer, it seems that none of those sources even contain the words "name checking" or "namechecking". It's starting to seem as just a neologism, and Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Paul Cyr 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read words 2 to 5 of the article text. Uncle G 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- And none of the sources show that. 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read your comment that was being replied to, and then read words 2 to 5 of the article text, again, to see what the reply is. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- And none of the sources show that. 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read words 2 to 5 of the article text. Uncle G 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not that it invalidates your point, but do you mind telling me why you haven't simply added them yourself since you were the one who found the sources? Seems that would have been the simplest solution. And actually, after looking closer, it seems that none of those sources even contain the words "name checking" or "namechecking". It's starting to seem as just a neologism, and Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Paul Cyr 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was counting from the first of the several times that you nominated the article for deletion. You already have several potential sources now. Go put them in the article yourself. Deletion won't do that, and it doesn't require administrator tools to improve the article in the way that you want it to be improved. You're a Wikipedia editor. Edit! It no doubt took you more time to repeatedly nominate the article for deletion all of those times over the months than the 5 minutes it took with Google Web to find what is cited above. Uncle G 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The second and third articles looked identical. The fourth I choose not to register to see. The fifth went 404 on me. The first two articles both used the phrase brand name dropping, so if the article remains it should be moved to that name. But merging into Name-dropping would be just as good - and since it is mostly done already, quite easy to do. GRBerry 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears that MediaPost requires a log-in if one isn't being referred to the article by Google, as I was. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Name-dropping. It seems to me that there is enough verifiable information for an article, but the problem is in the title. The articles provided by Uncle G would work in nicely over there; in fact there already exists a section that describes the phenomenon. (And I was about to mention the "linky no worky" before GRBerry beat me to it) --RoninBKETC 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that I've fixed the Daily Trojan link. Uncle G 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge w Redirect per RoninBK --Arvedui 00:52, 8 November 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.
