Talk:NUGGET

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Useless hearsay

I do not understand why this page is up for deletion it is a valid and credible article and should be left. It is a true article and is an informative piece of writing which is appropriate for wikipedia. NUGGETING exists i've heard about it before people deserve to know

I totally agree. I come from Trinity Grammar in Sydney and was pleasantly surprised to find an article on this cultural phenomenon on such a great international website as WP. There is no good reason for the deletion of this article.

I agree also, this page should not be deleted! This is exactly what wikipedia is about. If people wanted terminology and events straight out of Britannica then they would go to Britannica.com. Nuggeting is a perfectly viable topic and exists in today's schools.

NUGGETING is a very real phenomenom that even i myself have been a victim of, i strongly believe that this page should be allowed to stay on this site, if not for the fact that it exists then for a warning to those who may be NUGGETED in the future.

[edit] Very informative

this article illustrates the effects of Nuggeting, as a current student, i have been exposed to such activities regularly. this is a real issue and shouldnt not be so easily disregarded as nonsense.

[edit] The Nugget is Real

This article should not be dicarded as most other trash people put up on this site, it is a factual modern day occurance, we are in the buisness of writing history not copying it, if u believe you need citations to believe something then i believe it is time for you to step out. This article is about preparation for the a new age and must stay.

You have just supported the case for deleting this article. Wikipedia is not a place for original research; that is, it is not the place for "writing history" and it is the place for "copying it." It is a place to summarize what has already been published or documented by other reliable sources. --mdd4696 15:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

NUGGET SHOULD STAY

As a complete outsider, I have come across this entertaining but informative article and I'd have to agree with the others- it should stay because it seems to be a common term/event that occurs at schools these days and so people need to understand what it is and what it involves. For example, parents need to know what the latest trends are to protect their children. So many other slang or colloquial terms have been defined or discussed on this website so why should we leave this out too?

NUGGET KEEP i think its evident that NUGGET is real, legitimate and credible no matter how many citations or publicity it has. I didnt know this website only allowed for well-known subject matter with a minium amount of citations. It is REAL, NUGGETTING DOES happen and people are entilted to a proper definition. Please leave this article up it speaks the truth and in no way does it discredit this websites reputation

KEEP---- Although the sockpuppetting is annoying and inappropriate it is only a sign of the popularity of this page. Perhaps the supporters our angry at wikipedia for being so judgemental and immediately labelling it "nonsense" and "neologism" just because they were unfamiliar with the concept. It obviously exists and deserves to remain

[edit] Keep the NUGGET

I don’t see why this article is up for deletion, nuggeting is a common occurrence (I have experienced it first hand) and I don’t see why this page should be deleted. Also the people who wrote this put a lot of effort into it and should not be deleted, I can see why some people may see it as "nonsense" as they are not familiar with the concept, isn’t that Wikipeadia is about, building up a fountain of human knowledge? Don’t you want people to contribute what they know? I say keep the nugget.

[edit] THE NUGGET IS REAL!!!

I believe that the foo NUGGET should not be deleted. It is a real epidemic! Today I was a victim of the nugget. As a result of being NUGGETED my pencil case zipper was damaged. If something is NUGGETED there is a possibility that it will be damaged. I believe that this article is raising awareness of the dangers of NUGGETING. KEEP THE NUGGET!!!!

i stumbled by the page looking for mcnuggets ( a delightful source of energy for us fitness buffs) and i cant say how helpful it has been, i finally know what the local children at gym are doing to eachs others bags down at bondi gym. i can not believe the controversy to me this is exactly the what the purpose of wikipedia is, to act as a free encyclopedia. I applaud wikipedia for allowing this page. "the difference between winners and losers, is that winner do enough to win.Losers don't."--- A.T.

[edit] Cleanup

[edit] Removal of unsourced, non-neutral, anecdote

I've removed an anecdote purporting to describe an incident at St. Patricks College Strathfield. The anecdote was not written from the Neutral point of view and unverifiable. Wikipedia does not accept such content unless it is written in a NPOV manner and accompanied by cited sources. Uncle G 14:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced, speculative, history

I've removed the history from the article. The description of the purported first instance of the practice cited no actual sources demonstrating that this was "known and confirmed" as claimed, and was unverifiable. The remainder told us that the history and origin of the practice was "unclear", and cited the ubiquitous "some" and "others" as its sources, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Uncle G 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unverifiable group

I've removed a description of a purported group of "NUGGET Kings" from the article. No sources were cited to allow readers to verify that this group even exists, let alone to allow readers to confirm what the article says about the group. The place to promote one's own group is one's own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unreliable sources

I've removed garbage from the end of the article, twice. UrbanDictionary is not useful to readers, as it accepts entirely made up stuff without any process of fact checking or verification. If you are going to add further reading, please use reliable sources. Uncle G 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The content from Urban Dictionary.com is, i believe, not garbage nor unusefull. I accept that Urban Dictionary does indeed accept "entirely made up stuff without the process of fact checking", the entry which I (sparks_333) have added has 23 supporting votes for it. If I were to define the term "Cup" in UrbanDictionary.com as a vehicle used for space travel, it would not recieve any supporting votes and therefore not be so easily visible to viewers. Just like the term, "Sock Puppeting", "Nugget" is, indeed, a madeup term which has become standard vernacular in many societies as illustrated in your posting of a news article in which the principle refers to incidents of "Nuggeting". My intentions for citing an Urbandictionary.com definition is to show that our article on NUGGETING conforms with other deifinitions on the matter and to also verify that the term exists through other sources and outside of the St. Patricks College Strathfield community. I daresay that the so often used term, "Sock puppeting" would not exist in vernacular outside of the internet and that the term NUGGET would be known by more adolescent school students that the term, "Sock puppeting" - this is the my first encounter with the term. When the term "Sock puppeting" was coined there would have been extrememly few references, sources or newspaper articles on the term, however it was granted a page on wikipedia.

Also, the Sydney Slang definition of NUGGETING serves the same purpose, simply through alternate sources and, in fact, alludes to the concept of the term being introduced from Britain.

For these reasons i have placed the Urbandictionary.com and Sydney Slang definitions back up as i feel they contribute to the fallibility of the article. My reasons for this are not to cause trouble or frustration, but simply to aid in the creation of what wikipedia is. Created by people for people. As such I must put in what i believe belongs and try to substantiate my claims. If you are still dissatisfied with the citations i respectfully request that you explain in greater detail why these references to the term being discussed, "NUGGETING", are unnacceptable as they are ultimately another factor to contribute in proving the existance and viability of the term, "NUGGET" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks 333 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-21 15:50:50 UTC

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. The mere existence of a word is not the issue for Wikipedia. This encyclopaedia article is about a concept. That people happen to like an UrbanDictionary entry means nothing, and neither helps to further explicate the concept nor assist in verifiability. Moreover, a web log posting by a pseudonymous user does not constitute a reliable source. I refer you to what Durova says below, and the examples that xe mentions. That is the level of referencing and quality of external reading material that you should be aspiring to. Uncle G 22:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. The newspaper article you located is a start. Not enough to qualify yet. Best wishes. Durova 16:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for your assistance in the process of amending this article in an attempt to reach wikipedia standards. My co-author and I have worked hard in assembling this article and have made an effort to dissuade people from leaving foolish and unproductive comments. In no way have we encouraged their actions and we have been frustrated in their poor editing of the page and some of their arguements to keep the page. We did not promote the page to anyone nor are we affiliated with them and we only wrote the page to inform people of what we thought was a popular subject matter, which needed clarification.

I will gladly listen to any more suggestions you have and i invite you to make amendments as you see fit.

[edit] Moving to more acceptable name

It isn't an acronym, and thus the completely capitalised name is bad, bad form. Perhaps move to Nugget (prank), if it survives the AFD, and update the Disambig at Nugget accordingly. Tolo 05:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why it should be entitled in screaming capital letters "NUGGET" rather than something like "Nuggeting" or Tolo's suggestion? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 19:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened Version

I feel that the highly cut-down version of the article is the most on this subject allowable by Wikipedia. Despite this term being a neologism (which is partly why it's being listed for deletion), the single reference does support the description provided in my edit. The entire Method section that had been previously present on the page is original research, and therefore is not allowable. --mdd4696 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Author's Comment

Whilst i appreciate your efforts in amending the article i must sound my objections to the deletion of the nugget method section. This section was supported by two references from urban dictionary (it was ranked in the high 30's by users meaning the definition was accepted by a large adolescent audience) and a sydney slang definitions page (which i feel is credible). The method section is a vital part to the article and i would request that it be left alone. It seems that you expect references from politicians, lawyers, Psychologists and professers - your expectations are to high and i highly doubt that every page on wikipeida has such references. I was also unware of the fact that every single idea and every single sentence in an article had to be supported by such credible references. I am sure that no articles have such in depth referencing otherwise the list of references would be longer than the article itself. There is no evidence in what we have discovered that contradicts the information that we had in the method section. Please feel free to contribute to the article but such drastic changes are unwelcome.

All edits should be done in the interest of Wikipedia and should be intended to follow community consensus. Since the Urban Dictionary entry on Nuggeting is not a reliable source, there is nothing to suggest that the Method section is not original research, and it is therefore unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. If this page survives the deletion nomination, the current (shortened, method-less) article is more than adequate given the undocumented nature of the subject matter. --mdd4696 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Whilst i understand that you are editing this article in our interests, i must protest against your deletion of the method section. It is a factual entry based on common knowledge, ask any teenager in sysdney how to do a nugget and they will tell you, are you expecting a professor or politician to write about how to do a nugget because you will be sadly dissappointed, i have made numerous changes to this article and i a point has been reached where the article is not informative nor interesting. Wikipedia's rigid application of the rules is what i feel discrimminatory and less desirable articles such as this are scrutinised excessively. The method section will be re-posted and i ask that you not remove it, whatever the cost

Fine, I'll leave it alone until it's deleted. They will probably protect the page since you seem so keen on disregarding Wikipedia's policies. Also, did you know you can start your own wiki? You can download the code at MediaWiki and then you wouldn't have to follow our "discrimminatory" rules. --mdd4696 22:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)