Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saltshaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 18:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saltshaker

Nonsense dic def, delete --nixie 22:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Since this is a widely used and understood term, I vote the definition be maintained. Furthermore, while it may be seen as slang, it cannot be seen as pejoritive or derogitory, hence its standing is sound. Maintain -- Barrettmagic 22:52, 2005 Jun 15 (according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
  • Delete. Neologism? Mr Bound 22:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Challenge Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for nonsense (IE - total, completely and irremediably confused, patented, poorly written, patisan, religious, flame bait, obscene, vandalism, non-native, hoaxes or fictional) User: Barrettmagic (actually 137.69.85.36 23:03, 2005 Jun 15 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
    • Sure, it may not be "patent nonsense" in the official Wikipedia definition of it, but I think "nonsense" here is being used in its everyday meaning instead, especially considering the fact that patent nonsense is usually nominated for speedy deletion. But just because something isn't patent nonsense doesn't mean the article should be kept. — Ливай | ☺ 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speculative etymology. No merge candidates. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, most of the "saltshaker" links I get on Google are to Christian sites, so it appears to be a term of some religious significance. The usage in question, while potentially existing, does not appear to be in widespread use. --FCYTravis 23:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) - keep as rewritten.
  • Delete. The slang definitions of the word that I could find include a variety of sexual topics, but like a lot of slang neologisms it seems to have widely divergent meanings depending on who is using it. And like all poorly-defined slang neologisms, it probably doesn't belong here in the Wikipedia. I doubt it is "widely used and understood" based on this and the fact that I have never heard it in my life. — Ливай | ☺ 23:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Change of vote: Keep rewritten article. Very nice job! — Ливай | ☺ 02:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain 'have never heard it in my life' - isnt that what wikipedia is all about? to learn and grow? Besides it has no christian connection - I'm a heathen. For more information on the term, please visit www.myassismygift.com Barrettmagic 23:15, 2005 Jun 15 (according to edit history. Uncle G 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC))
    • Well, if you want to claim that it is widely used and understood I would like to see some evidence of that. The fact that I have never heard it used (and that nobody else has said that they have heard it) is evidence that it is not widely used or understood, as is the fact that it is not listed in the Urban Dictionary and the fact that I cannot find any instance of the word being used as such on Google. Wikipedia is about learning about the world at large, not about learning slang terms used among a group of friends somewhere. — Ливай | ☺ 23:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • please visit www.myassismygift.com — since that redirects to http://www.barrettmagic.com/, and since you are User:Barrettmagic, you are apparently citing yourself as a source, providing no verifiability at all. isnt that what wikipedia is all about? — Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It isn't about promoting made-up slang definitions for words. This is for several reasons:
      • Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. Definitions of words are not what we do here in the first place. They are Wiktionary's job. Wiktionary doesn't accept made-up definitions for words, either, though. It documents how words have been and are actually used in practice, not new meanings of words or newly coined words that people don't (yet) use. If you want to promote slang definitions that you have made up, you are in completely the wrong place. Go to Urban Dictionary. That's what they do there. If your slang word catches on and enters widespread, independent, use, then it becomes eligible for Wiktionary.
    • Uncle G 01:01, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete in the current state, its a more of a Dicdef and therefore cannot be expanded too much. Also, wikipedia is not a slang/idiom guide (or neologism in this case) see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Either re-direct to salt (if impossible to make greater than a stub) or keep if possible. Georgia guy 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would support keeping a "real" article on saltshakers though, they're a notable genre of collectable item. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Georgia guy has provided a rewritten article about saltshakers, the containers for salt that one finds on dining tables — what I expected the article to be about when I saw the title, to be honest. Uncle G 00:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • This isn't the boat hire company (which is just another company, it seems), the Australian conservation project, or the musician (who might not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, in any case). Redirect to salt shaker, unless someone writes about the Australian conservation project, which seems to be significant. Uncle G 01:01, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • ... as someone just has. ☺ Rewritten article again. Uncle G 01:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.