Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webcest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted - There's an overwhelming consensus to delete when rampant sock/meatpuppetry is ignored. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcest

Neoligism that is neither notable nor encyclopedic. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell what's going on here. It looks like The Bob Talbot started the VfD, but Thirty3, who created the Webcest article, created the VfD subpage without the template and then blanked it. I am trying to remedy things and get the VfD properly set up, since I do think this article deserves a VfD. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (Amended 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC))

This was the first VFD I'd ever been involved it, so I wasn't trying anything malicious with the VFD page - I put my vote for keep up and then removed it because I wanted to see what kinds of comments would be put on the page before commiting to that vote. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I don't think most of the no-user comments are from sock puppets, though they obviously aren't from people who care a lot about the wikipedia's process. Thirty3 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's something that's out there, is not going away and should be known to exist! 16:52, 4 April 2006 (GMT)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Extremely useful word that can be used to describe certain aspects of the internet without having to explain too much; the definition should be clarified, but other than that a handy phrase. HooTuckEye 20:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful new word. Describes social implications of the internet, and social interaction not possible before the existence of the net.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Has an essential and unique function. While it is not yet notable it will, undoubtably become the greatest word ever invented
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Best new word of our time Karmicthreat 21:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Perhaps could use a bit of cleaning up, but is certainly a worthwhile page to have up.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- This term is worth having around. It's got huge usage potential, I just think that its actual definition will need to be clarified a bit. Once that's happened, there's no reason not to keep it. AnthonyRichardson
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Any term's power lies in its potential utility. This is a "High-concept" Neologism, and as it does not duplicate or usurp another, more acceptable term with the same definition, I'm for keeping it.DocStout
Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- Its a great word written by a great man.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- Cmon, just dont look at it if you don't like it.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Keep it on the site, because it is awsome.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- It is educational, and fun. Think of the children!
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- It's sexy!
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - a term created on the 2nd of august (yesterday) can not possibly be of sufficent notaritety to warrant an encyclopedia article. Usrnme h8er 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Neologism --malathion talk 09:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef, neologism, crystal ball - wide range of reasons to delete this. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Madd3Max 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delēre, neologism. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, crystal ball, neologism. Sliggy 13:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This should have been gone shortly after it came up.--Mitsukai 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 18:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons above. If webcest.com or webcest.org is ever established in the geek psyche I might change my opinion. Carl T 21:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --- Don't delete it. Webcest has staying power. I can see it becoming the next blog of neologisms. SenorFred 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Camw 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have amended teh paragraph at the top, removing my vote from this VfD. I am not impartial wrt this article, and am abstaining from the vote. --DavidConrad 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Also, sorry for not putting up an explanation! I had intended to but I was doing about five things at once and somehow got distracted. I just remembered the whole deal today and checked on it.The Bob Talbot 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would agree that it is a neologism, yet, I think that the basic concept, a sexual practice made possblie by the internet, is a an identifiable conecpt that should have a term. the label would be helpful in discussions. This is English, after all, essentailly a chimera of neologisms words stolen form other languages. The influx of technology, and the resultant new methods of interaction are rapidly increasing the speed at which a neologism is accepted. Blogging, podcasting, Googling, Etc. Gearyster 16:33, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)
Comment: This vote is the user's second edit. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This is true. However, I think my point is still valid, for what it's worth. Gearyster 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wiktionary - I created the page becaose I didn't get to the part aboot neolgisms being inappropriate. Personally, I feel that if a neologism is extremely onstable, the page will change all the time and the chorn will make it an obvioos candidate for deletion, otherwise why not gamble with a coople of k of disk space? I think that a lot of words are created and no one knows how or by whom, I wanted to track the history of a word being created. Thirty3 17:58, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)
  • Keep - I'm already osing this word. 207.193.69.153
Vote by non-user -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. claviola (talk to me) 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think you should have to work a little harder than this to get your new word into an encyclopaedia. sneakums 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Enough of wikipedia is nonsense already. fuzzie 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - A needed word in today's society! Inanechild 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Perahps you didn't catch that Jeffrey Rowland coined this. On what planet is that not enough? reznite 19:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I used it today when my uncle was talking dirty to my sister on the internet. If it's usable and applicable to everyday life, and it doesn't get in anybody's way, why not keep it?
  • Delete - This VFD is not about Jeffrey Rowland or his web comics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BenKimball 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Wiktionary - This doesn't seem like a term unworthy of being defined, but as Webcest is not yet a cultural phenomenon, I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia article.
    This is not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Neologism, obviously fails the google test, not encyclopedic, etc. JZ 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Might as well, since it will only be used more and more often. Flying Hamster 00:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, proposed by a fairly prominent web personality. RMG 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it's pretty awesome; also sweet. Jonathan Rosenberg 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are plenty of neologisms on this site already, deleting this one just because certain people don't like it is rather foolish, and the term does have its place within a fairly wide audience. Krinberry 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This entry is not really misleading in any way; it is not as if it is incorrect. Webcest seems like an interesting linguistic experiment. I for one would like to keep around to see what happens. Besides, who is it going to hurt to keep it? 6:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wiktionary - Same reasons above, doesn't belong here without cultural relevance. MMZzach 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP while the word may be new, the concept it describes is not, and has been noted and remarked upon before. --Tosei 11:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, We've been looking for a term for the obvious, and as this grows there will be only more content. Perhaps a brief introduction?
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 11:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is such a widely practiced hobby in today's culture that its begging for a term to be made for it.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, If you don't keep this, you are lame.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense neologism.--nixie 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete i like Jeff as much as the next man, but this needs to get soem prominence before it can be accepted. You can't get prominence via Wikipedia. -vee
  • 'keep(provisional), keep this, but this article must be improved. an article containing nothing but examples is not up to par. improve content and add additional media citations. further info on the history of the term might be gathered (who had a hand in creating the word and the context of the creation). i reserve the right to to change my vote if i decide that webcest is not yet ready for wikipedia. -- I'll own my words, don't strike me out!! btw everyone who voted delete should have another look at the page in question. it's filling in nicely. the rewrite by Tosei is quite good. my provisional keep is not so provisonal.. as to my being a new user.. i do not dispute this but i'm a long time user of wikipedia, and now that i'm here, i'm here to stay... hit me on my discussion page if you have any questions or comments. --Michaelcoyote 10:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User's second edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP --- It's all in good fun.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


  • KEEP I do most of the things described as meeting the requirements for webcestuous behavior on a daily basis. It's about time i knew what i was up to.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, C'mon, guys. Don't be taking this so seriously. Wikipedia is here for informational purposes and provides information as well as the next.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The practice is far too popular to not have a proper name, and Webcest is as good as any.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a term for unsavory cyber-sex related actions is necessary
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe this word shall benefit all those at a loss for words when recently unnameable e-deviancies are commited. Fearbeer 21:50, August 6th, (GMT -08:00)
Comment: This user's only two edits are to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This word has already entered my vocabulary, and is posed to be a phenomenon.
This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. there are way too many sockpuppets/new users/unsigned votes in this VfD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - supported by jillions of new users/sockpuppets and the closing admin should take note of this. I've taken the liberty of striking through all anon votes as meatpuppetry run rampant. FCYTravis 08:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - self-admitted neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete note the sockpuppetry, people!Borisblue 08:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's already been mentioned in casual conversation within earshot of me twice since the 2nd. -- evilskull 01:57, 8 August 2005 (EST)
User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Use is expanding already. Wikipedia ought to be on top of these things as they happen; if we have to wait until it appears in the Queen's speech before something emerges we might as well use paper encyclopedias instead. Marijne
  • Keep not every new word spreads so fast but this one has, and in doing so demonstrated how valid it is JCS 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is no word that is not neoligism, except maybe Fun-tastic, which was in wide use even when the mighty stegosaurs towered over fearful tiny mammals in the sun. deleting this entry is stymying change and progress, the combination of forces that is responsible for a crazy newfangled internet-cyclopedia in the first place. -shirou
Unsignedish vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The necessity of this word is simply staggering. Within the confines of its very definition fall a plethora of calls for e-morality. Without this word, who is to say what can be considered "right" or "wrong" in the inky vastness of the internet? The rampant and widespread shenanigans that can be perpetrated on the internet with virtually no recourse are astounding, this word will bring to this nameless, faceless amalgam of users what they truly need, guilt. People choose to ignore their conscience so long as there are no true repercussions, but this word will bring their conscience back to them. -BarbaricSushi
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Wikipedia is not a tool for spreading a neologism; it is for recording a well-established one, at best. WWC 19:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a useful word, without a doubt. jtgotsjets
User's seventh edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - one of the useful functions of wikipedia is being a kind of pop culture mirror. silentthomas
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Langauge is an ever changing and evolving concept of verbal communication. As such new words with merrit must be kept in some sort of record (hence Wikipedia). As all words were new once, word age cannot be considered a valid reason for discontinuation. Also, considering that the average person's vocabulary is less then 25,000 words (Psycholinguist Dr. Catherine E. Snow - Harvard Gradruate School) and there are more than three times that many 'official' words in the English Langauge (Oxford English Dictionary), one cannot assume common usage as an appropriate moniker for a word. Most importantly though, the word provides an adequate label to "innapropriate internet behavior", something that has yet to be done; therefore, the word has a place in the English Language and a justified exsistence.
Unsigned edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)</wiki>
  • Keep - It's an incredibly valuable addition to the lexicon of english language. It's useful, and has become part of my daily vocabulary. --Thelatespaceboy 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In essence this is not an argument for whether Webcest should be a word or not, that will be decided simply if it cathes on or not. This argument concerns the ability of one to post a usefull and catchy neologism on this site. Therefore the question which is actually being voted on is this: "Is Wikipedia a place where language can evolve, or is it merely another online encyclopedia?" Jake Mercer

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of new ideas. It is supposed to describe the world as it is. You are arguing that we should violate policies on self-promotion, verifiability, and the ever-important No Original Research. Everyone vote to keep is a vote to ignore the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia.
  • Keep
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and put what useful information there is under Overcompensating or Jeffrey Rowland, either of which are just significant enough for articles. Wikipedia is not the place to put invented words -- Urbandictionary.com is. Come back when use of "webcest" is at least as common as "santorum". Silly Dan 21:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place to push for usage of a new word. There're other avenues, and this really is a vanity page, nothing more. While I've enjoyed the comic that originated this term, (and came to this specific page from there), I don't agree with the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a puppet of someone's neologistic agenda. neesha
  • Keep - Language is continually changing and moving forward. deleting this entry because it hasn't reached a national level yet will simply show that everything in the world including the wikipedia likes to halt change. this being a small example, but you get the point. within a couple of years this will be a regular use term and there is no reason to wait till that happens to leave the page up.
Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - You use the term Neologism like it's a bad thing. As the person above me said, there is no reason to inhibit progress. Allowing this entry to stay isn't going to hurt anyone. If the word takes off, then you will have a good page about a new word. If it doesn't, then in a few months or a year you can remove it. As of right now, it is a new word, so the entry should not be deleted only a few days after it was created. Vince Berry
Appears to not be a real user-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let him have his fun. It's a valid term too, despite it's novelty and recent inception. ElVaquero 16:48, 8 August 2005
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.