Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whopperbuzz
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 of the debate was Delete (18/6).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Whopperbuzz
This is a small, local (Dublin, Ireland) message board. They claim only about 500 members. Alexa shows no traffic data. Joyous | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Mere vanity... 9cds 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Ahem, but did you check out the actual web site? Here it is if you haven't bothered: http://s7.invisionfree.com/Whopper_Buzzes/index.php? You've got sections with 700 topics and 20,000 replies and you are saying that it's not notable? If you add up all the replies total, you are up to 91,606 posts. Now, if you were to compare this with, say, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, the comparisons would be favourable. It also has a second claim to notoriety besides mere popularity. Its also a word to mean a heightened state of bliss. I don't think we have any choice here. Zordrac 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I did visit the site. Whatever made you think I wouldn't go look for myself? Yes, they do have lots of conversations and replies, but they only have about 500 registered members, which seems small for forum to rate inclusion here. As for the second "claim to notoriety," why would the name they chose have any effect on the importance of the forum? What source says it means "a heightened state of bliss"? Joyous | Talk 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Message boards on the Web are a dime a dozen; this one needs some reason for notability beyond a narrow community to keep. (And "Whopperbuzz" sounds like it ought to be the feeling you get when you eat a Burger King Whopper!) *Dan T.* 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Whopper Buzz is a slang word in common useage in Dublin Ireland. Not only as its described on this page i.e. that was a whopper Buzz, meaning that was a good time, but also just as an exclamation of pleasure (for example... Jim: Here's the keys to my new Porsche Bob: WhopperBuzz!) I hear it all the time I dont think you can delete it its a real thing. As for the forum definition I'd make it a secondary meaning. What can I say... its a Dublin thing essentially. I never knew its origin so this page has done exactly what wikipedia's supposed to do. Share the knowledge! Llogic 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; but add to Wiktionary if it's really in common usage. Peyna 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable... that is all. (Notorious4life 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
- Delete lacks notability.MONGO 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- delete
not even close to WP:WEB.∴ here…♠ 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete forum entry based on WP:WEB. Include dic def in wiktionary if it can be sourced. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is one of a small number of slang words where the first instance of use can be traced to a specific time and place. It would be a shame if this information was not recorded. Blue jumper 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Mgm as ever. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Zordrac. Stifle 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: It's really of no consequence that the board is active or not, at least to me. What's at the heart of the matter is whether this site is discussed by outsiders, such as regular newspapers and magazines (in print). Some things, like Match.com, get press because they become the example of online dating, but, other than sites that either cause mass effects or get outside notice, Wikipedia ought not be covering them, as it is not a web guide. Geogre 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Zordrac. --Aleron235 20:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Zordrac. Trollderella 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. No notability at all. RasputinAXP talk contribs 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- Comment: Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I know what they mean by it, it's just not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know that you know, but it's better than saying "This article is a piece of crap." RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and that isn't a reason to delete either. Improve it if you don't like it. Trollderella 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- It can be improved by nuking it from orbit. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, fun as it seems to be for deletionists to try to remove their least favourite articles, it is an abuse. Improve articles, don't destroy things. Trollderella 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's more point to improving articles that have at least an outside chance of becoming relevant. Even though I say I'm a deletionist I don't vote delete every time. I'd have thought you'd be immune to trolling. :P RasputinAXP talk contribs 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well said, I suppose I should be immune! ;) Trollderella 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's more point to improving articles that have at least an outside chance of becoming relevant. Even though I say I'm a deletionist I don't vote delete every time. I'd have thought you'd be immune to trolling. :P RasputinAXP talk contribs 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, fun as it seems to be for deletionists to try to remove their least favourite articles, it is an abuse. Improve articles, don't destroy things. Trollderella 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- It can be improved by nuking it from orbit. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and that isn't a reason to delete either. Improve it if you don't like it. Trollderella 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know that you know, but it's better than saying "This article is a piece of crap." RasputinAXP talk contribs 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know what they mean by it, it's just not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- WP:WEB is a proposed policy, please mention this when using it as grounds for a vote. Peyna 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Delete. nn - vanity. --hydnjo talk 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete There's already a perfectly good article for the college at Ardscoil Rís, surely that's the place to mention this if anywhere. Flowerparty■ 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Surely that is not a viable argument. Just because the students that claim have begun the use of this expression were from a certain school does not mean this subject should be mentioned on that school's page. Surely, by that logic, everything on wikipedia should be on the school page of whatever person/people is/are involved.Blue jumper 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Delete. Non-notable. And before the aptly named Trollderella speaks up with the claim that "Notability is not part of deletion policy", it's called Deductive reasoning:
- notable says that articles are obscure, unverifiable, or lack differentiation from others of its type should not be included.
- This article's subject is obscure, unverifiable, and lacks differentiation from others of its type.
- Therefore it should not be included; i.e, deleted.
--Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Erm? My claim that notability is not part of deletion policy is based on the fact that notability is not part of deletion policy. It's just not. You know it's not. You link to Wikipedia:Importance, piping it to make it look like 'notability', when, in fact, 'importance' is proposed policy (it's first paragraph says that it may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.) Not, in fact, policy at all. Not even a guideline, and not, frankly, likely to become one. Your comments are abusive and deceptive. Trollderella 01:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Your claim is based on the false assumption that there is an exhaustive list of valid grounds for deletion. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- And yours on the false assumption that you can delete anything you like anytime you like for any reason, even one that the community has specifically asked you not to. Trollderella 19:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Your claim is based on the false assumption that there is an exhaustive list of valid grounds for deletion. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Erm? My claim that notability is not part of deletion policy is based on the fact that notability is not part of deletion policy. It's just not. You know it's not. You link to Wikipedia:Importance, piping it to make it look like 'notability', when, in fact, 'importance' is proposed policy (it's first paragraph says that it may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.) Not, in fact, policy at all. Not even a guideline, and not, frankly, likely to become one. Your comments are abusive and deceptive. Trollderella 01:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Very well. Delete, neologism, WP:NOT a publisher of original thought with direct reference to neologisms, as per WP:GD. oh, and non-notable too. RasputinAXP talk contribs 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neither the neologism nor the message board warrants a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. WP:WEB. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Nice link to a proposal to make it look like it's polciy! ;) Trollderella 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Linking to a proposal does not mean "I am sneakily trying to claim that this is policy", it means "the reason I think this should be deleted is that it does not meet these proposed guidelines for inclusion, which I support". The fact that WP:WEB is not policy is amply obvious to anyone who reads the disclaimer at the top of it. Here's another page that isn't policy, but may be relevant: WP:FAITH. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nice link to a proposal to make it look like it's polciy! ;) Trollderella 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The message board has no Alexa taffic rank. *drew 08:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- You would do well to note that the message board is not the subject of the article. Blue jumper 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Early versions of the article did focus on the message board, but it has been changed since. As an article on the term itself, it probably belongs on Wiktionary, if it's in large enough usage not to be a neologism, but should only be on Wikipedia if there's enough cultural history and background behind it to deserve a full encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- You would do well to note that the message board is not the subject of the article. Blue jumper 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as follows:
- The section on the slang term fails the policy WP:V. It does not really belong here anyway, since WP:NOT a dictionary; if the word can be verified and citations provided, it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary.
- This leaves a very short stub about a web forum. Since there is a consensus that WP:NOT a web directory, a precedent exists for deleting web forums of dubious notability. The proposed inclusion criteria, at WP:WEB, suggest that a forum should have "5,000 or more apparently unique members" before it is considered for an article: that is, they should be a full order of magnitude larger than this one. While this is not policy, there is a precedent for using this guideline as a rule of thumb when considering articles on websites. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 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.
