Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moyse

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moyse

The Moyse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article reads as a dictionary definition of a slang term, perhaps better suited in Urban Dictionary. Prod removed by author as well. Wildthing61476 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note from author
NPB2007 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) The article no longer resembles a dictionary definition and is a work in progress. The article now has both content and context.


External sources added. Additionally, the Claire Swire entry was allowed to remain.

  • Delete External sources are either unrelated, home pages of sites the author likes that don't use the term or a long forum thread in which a user that uses the term as their name has participated. Also, sex related slang terms come and go at lightning speed. Will it be in common use in 100 years? 10? 1? - Richfife 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also The Claire Swire email received international coverage. The Moyse, no. - Richfife 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible hoax and/or self-promotion. Referenced in the first listed (non-reliable) source as the name of a user, rather than using the definition here. Not found at all in the second site listed; only used in the third site as the name of a user. A search of google found nothing in the first hundred results for either '"The Moyse"' or 'moyse slang' that appears to be relevant. JulesH 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete At best, this is inappropriate to Wikipedia. At worst, it is non-notable slang. Slavlin 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The great majority of slang/neologism articles are pure unadulterated rubbish which should be shot and burned on sight. ---Cathal 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The article cites four sources. They all turn out to be bogus. Two are just pointers to the main pages of web discussion fora, one is a book that clearly pre-dates what is claimed here by almost two decades, and the remaining one is a pseudonymous post on a discussion forum by someone using the pseudonym indicated by this article's title. Searching, I found no sources at all documenting this purported concept. The article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not Urban Dictionary. Horologium talk - contrib 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, charitably, the author does not understand Wikipedia. We can't throw in references to Richard Dawkins and "memes" and puff up our article to be more important than it is. That isn't a reference at all. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NPB2007 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) We are documenting an internet phenomenon as it is happening. This is akin to the famous Clare Swires e-mail. I think wikipedia is the perfect place to record the process of events leading to the distribution of this story throughout the World by "word of e-mail". These are interesting (and sometimes funny, sometimes tragic) modern phenomena. The links have been updated and now point to the exact posts on internet forums.
  • Delete, trying to use Wikipedia to bootstrap a nonnotable meme. NawlinWiki 18:23, 16 May 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.