Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuke the fridge

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 per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuke the fridge

Nuke the fridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

It is highly unlikely, and thus far unproven, that this phase has become a part of the common film lexicon. There's quite a jump between a single discussion thread and a phrase becoming part of cinematic dialect, and new colloquialisms aren't apt to be fully established within a week of a movie's release. A phrase a couple of IMDB users toss around in a single thread is not a new colloquialism. Vianello (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone on the IMDB forums told you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete: it was coined by a bunch of kids on a message forum? Hardly notable and definitely not verifiable. Also WP:NOTDICDEF comes into play here. ——Ryan | t • c 09:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with (nuclear) fire. Thread started yesterday. Users discuss the lack of a Wikipedia article on page 5 (out of 6). I think I can connect the dots here. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article itself supports deletion: "This phrase is not in common use." Definately non-notable. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources retaining to the popularity of this phrase. Alientraveller (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete although at some point in the (near) future I would support to have it introduced again. The phrase is quickly becoming a known catchphrase. Still, only time will tell if it keeps popular. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: obviously non-notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for words your IMDB buddy made up one day. Without usage in reliable sources it's just another non-notable neologism that is not necessary. At least it gave me a good opportunity for some alliteration. ~ mazca talk 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete article is about a recently made up neologism. Was created as a phrase similar to "jumping the shark", but instead for use for movie series. Actually, the phrase "jumping the shark" can apply more to just television. This phrase was just someone's poor attempt at trying to coin a catchphrase. Non-notable, no secondary sources aside from the imdb.com message board. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. A few people's personal views about Indy 4, with a few forum posts as a "source", in no way shows notability. Gran2 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete For my part, I loved this movie. And I didn't like Speed Racer. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm Roger Ebert. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and preemptively salt as this will keep coming back. (Yes, I know it's out of process, but this is surely the time to IAR). "This phrase is currently not in common use as it is a new term. The term originated at imdb. Youtube videos can be found dedicated to Nuking the fridge." What more needs to be said? — iridescent 23:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. People are trying to "establish" this word using Wikipedia.[1]. Doesn't deserve any mention on any page. Radagast83 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just someone trying to publish an inside joke. Not wikipedia worthy. I would say CSD when it was first put up. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and add some salt this will come back. It's one of those that you just know it will. We do have enough for a WP:SNOW closure too...Undeath (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is merely an excuse to forcibly spread a weak web-meme from one message board to the next. It would do better as a footnote in a 'Jumping the Shark' wiki entry, but merits nothing beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhumbug (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Retain it' This term is sweeping the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossyG (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gracious. Do we have a WP:SNOW situation on our hands here? - Vianello (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Retain it' It might not be big yet - but it is going to be. Why not keep it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.24.52 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You're just kidding yourself. Seasoned moviegoers expect a bit of hyperbole in an adventure film. Somehow, Indy hasn't been hit by any of the bullets that have been fired at him over the years. A person whose reaction to films is "Yeah, right!" probably needs to watch documentaries instead. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the rest due to lack of verifiability and established notability by reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete:' Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia's role is to recognize when something has become notable, not to help make it notable in the first place. --nertzy (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2008 (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.