Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness

Votes for deletion:

• Delete self-admitted neologism coined on TV show on day article was written. MCB 07:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism... Though I did laugh at the line about not deleting this for being "not notable enough". Did the author see this coming? Maybe we have a new Kreskin among us.--Isotope23 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered my own question... article was speedied earlier today and recreated by author (thus the text about not deleting). Can't remember if there is a speedy for recreates of a deleted page...--Isotope23 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. CSD G4, and the templates are {{db-repost}} or {{db-g4}}. But this wasn't an exact recreation. Punkmorten 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Guess it can go AfD then... no harm in it sitting for 5 days.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. KeithD (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for that pseudo-philosophical whine at the bottom. --Agamemnon2 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete becuase first off, what's the harm in having it, it's just as relevant as having a page on The God Machine, a machine which only exists on the Daily Show and only affects its viewers. Come on. We're trying to start up a whole little set of Colbert Report Pages...give us some slack. --Carl

But the God Machine was used weekly on TDS. As far as I can recall, the word truthiness has been used just once. It's too soon for any running jokes to have appeared on the Colbert Report. KeithD (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete : This article should not be deleted because one considres it "not notable enough" for being from a TV show. Words are symbols, definitions are arbitrary. TV shapes culture. - 24.17.167.103( Moved from the article aka see article history )
• Don't Delete We have hundreds of thousands of pages and it is likely that this word could be referenced in the future, the article really just needs to be cleaned up. Behun 09:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The phrase isnt common language on the show, so for the time being its not relevant enough to make an article. If the phrase kept being used on the show it might be worth keeping. Remy B 09:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's not important enough for a standalone entry. Like Remy B wrote, if it were constantly used, the perception would be different. Neier 11:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree, it is silly to have a page for a one-time joke. -- MicahMN | μ 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the show is a hit and this becomes a major running joke, than it can be re-added. Until then, this is not notable. Andrew Levine 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one-time neologism. --Interiot 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How about we start one wikipedia entry that lists and defines all of his word of the days? The only problem is that it would fill up quickly, as the show is on four nights per week. --Sean WI 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • More filled up than... say... the MythBusters episodes? --Interiot 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 05:22, 25 October 2005 (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.