Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Muffins

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Muffins

Prairie Muffins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Textbook case of non-notable neologism. The "Prairie Muffin Manifesto" is hosted on a homeschooling mother's website, and "Note: If you have something you would like to suggest for the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, email carmon...". What fun! But not a reliable source. All other sources are blogs and quizzes ("Are you a Prairie Muffin?"). It looks like the article's author has worked very hard on this, and commentors at Talk:Prairie Muffins have raised doubts about verifiability, but the author couldn't come up with any further support. Time to move it off Wikipedia, back to the blogosphere. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yes the sources are blogs and other websites. But unlike most of the non-notable neologisms we debate here it is in lots of blogs and web sites. So it seems to be a real web word. Here is even a site making fun of it [1]. I think we keep other words used mainly on the web. This one seems to have caught on.Obina 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? It doesn't matter how many blogs and quizzes and chain letters and friendship bracelets it adds up to. Not a single one of them is a reliable source. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot my other thought. Perhaps the manifesto site itself meets WP:WEB and we should make the article about the web site if consensus is to delete this page as is. I forget how all that alexa stuff works.Obina 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not even the remostest chance of the website meeting WP:WEB. If it did, then it would already meet WP:RS. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:V. I could find no reliable sources for this. A regular google search didn't show anything, so I tried searching some more topical sites, such as The Christian Science Monitor and National Home Education Research Institute. I still drew a blank. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Artw 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notability, is not notable (not the same thing nessisarily) no reliable sources, pure Neologism. Wintermut3 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I have tried to find a legitimate source but I can't. Mallanox 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ... Even though Obina takes a very good point. I am the author of this page and created it as a noob before I had a good grasp of WP content policies. This site may come close to a usable source, but even if so it is only one such source which is not enough, since it must be the subject of MULTIPLE reliable sources. HOWEVER, I suggest you all apply the same standards to a few more of the sexual slang/neologisms I nominated for deletion. Also, give me a day or two until I get the info into Wikctionary where it more properly belongs. CyberAnth 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD won't close immediately, and I have a backup copy of the article on my hard drive (in wiki markup as well as html). If you need it later, let me know on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This page will be fun to quote in future AfD debates. CyberAnth 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A word of caution. AfDs stand on their own merits. To say that one thing failed so another automatically should is not a valid argument. Mallanox 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me also say that I have knowledge of a book in proccess for publication on Quiverfull where "Prairie Muffins" will be a subject of discussion (I am the author). So do not salt this, as I suspect an article (real article) might turn up again. CyberAnth 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you can close this. I have the info on userspace. CyberAnth 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. I thought you were moving it off Wikipedia. Yeah, you can take it into your userspace for a short period of time, but remember WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. — coelacan talk — 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What I cannot imagine is is the reasons for the double-standards. CyberAnth 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, wait, stop, this is too deliciously rich, I can hardly begin to savor it. Who is the one with "Most particularly, I am a hard-ass stickler for requiring reliable citations for all article claims" plastered on his userpage that he links to dumpy little unsourced articles with such swelling pride? Do you even read your book? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/7.html — coelacan talk — 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge While the circumstances under which this AfD came about may be suboptimal, it's factually accurate & correct in its application of policy. A Google News search shows no news sources using the phrase. While my instinct is that this is a notable phenomenon, it doesn't appear that there are any reliable sources with which to cite references and make the article verifiable --Ssbohio 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: CyberAnth, you deleted this user's comment. See this diff. This is not the first time you've done something like that. Are these honest mistakes because you're just barrelling ahead without regard for others, or what? — coelacan talk — 08:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I figured out what was going on. It is because I have been refreshing my browser after an edit conflict rather than clicking the edit link anew. Apparently, that removes the edit that caused the conflict. I know to avoid that now. CyberAnth 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Coelacan, remember to Assume good faith -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete no evidence the term is in widespread use and WP:NOR. If some good sources could be put forth, I'd change my vote, however. Tarinth 10:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom DXRAW 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article coming from a charismatic christian, it seems that this expression is mostly used in these closed christian communities and is not known much to laizistic people. Googling gives LOTS of references. Even if the author is notoriously trying to AfD articles describing sexual slang by pretending that there are no sufficient source references, that is no reason to do the same to him (that's just retaliation). I find that article very interesting and vote for keeping. St blac 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — St blac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. No sources provided for this article provide nontrivial, independent coverage. Nick Graves 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: please remind author at User talk:CyberAnth that subpage User:CyberAnth/Prairie Muffins should be moved off-wiki ASAP, as WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. — coelacan talk — 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - regardless of how it's ended up on AfD, I can't find evidence that this phrase is used widely enough to justify a keep. Since double standards have been mentioned, I agree that consistency is important, and double standards should be eliminated. But there's a reason that I voted delete here, and keep at "wanker". First, wanker is a much more commonly used term than prairie muffin (over two million Google hits, versus 878). Second, and more importantly, there are reliable dictionary sources that at least define the term "wanker", including saying how it's usage has evolved over the years. I can't find a single dictionary source that even mentions the term "prairie muffin". If you can find one, I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. If "prairie muffin" is really a widely used term among Evangelical Christians, I wouldn't mind if a small mention of it was made in that article, or somewhere similar. However, if it's only used by a small minority within that community, I don't think it belongs there. In any case, I don't see enough information to justify its own article. Quack 688 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:RS and if the creator of the article CyberAnth is writing a book on the subject doesnt that mean this article is in violation of WP:NOR too?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism and conflict of interest concerns as well. Silensor 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear COI. Article gives no useful information. An external link in the home schooling article to the website would be enough. DGG 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete muffins. Suprised that Improv hasn't gotten to this one already, actually.  ;-) RFerreira 08:52, 10 January 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.