| Revision as of 13:25, 4 January 2007 editWeirdoactor (talk | contribs)1,862 edits →[]: strong/speedy keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:58, 4 January 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →[]: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. The article now provides a lot of references, but these are all to mere ''use'' of the term. Notability would be established only if the term were the actual ''subject'' of multiple, independent published works. If such citations can be provided, then the article can be kept, or recreated in the future, but as-is it doesn't meet ]. —] 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. The article now provides a lot of references, but these are all to mere ''use'' of the term. Notability would be established only if the term were the actual ''subject'' of multiple, independent published works. If such citations can be provided, then the article can be kept, or recreated in the future, but as-is it doesn't meet ]. —] 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''STRONG/Speedy Keep''' Satisfies ] in triplicate (which is policy, not a guideline, as is ]). The Delete votes here (as in the original AfD) seem to be either jokes ("crap sense"?), "per" votes (which is laziness/bad faith, as this is a debate, NOT a vote) or they don't quote actual policy. Using bureaucracy to commit article murder is bad faith. Shame! You hug your mother with the hands on the same fingers you type these delete votes with? Oy! You should BE so lucky! -- ] <sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''STRONG/Speedy Keep''' Satisfies ] in triplicate (which is policy, not a guideline, as is ]). The Delete votes here (as in the original AfD) seem to be either jokes ("crap sense"?), "per" votes (which is laziness/bad faith, as this is a debate, NOT a vote) or they don't quote actual policy. Using bureaucracy to commit article murder is bad faith. Shame! You hug your mother with the hands on the same fingers you type these delete votes with? Oy! You should BE so lucky! -- ] <sup>]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>]</sup> 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' it's a one-off joke. Coverage is trivial, not substantive. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:58, 4 January 2007
Jewdar
This was previously nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jewdar. The article had a substantial re-write after most of the "delete no sources" weighed in, and although the sources were weak, they were enough to nullify the previous arguments. I closed it as no-consensus and suggested that it be renominated so that there could be frank discussion of the quality of the sources. It's oddly gone through Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29 first, but right back here it is. No opinon at this time. - brenneman 01:55, 4 January 2007
- Delete per original nom. Washinton Post ref looks like a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece to me. Chovain 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per original nom. References all appear to use it jokingly, word hasn't seen widespread use (in contrast to the similar 'gaydar').--Velvet elvis81 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per original nom. MER-C 06:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, tongue in cheek usage is still usage. People come to Misplaced Pages to have neologisms explained, and The Washington Post was a good reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- For this sort of thing, people ought to go to Wiktionary instead. —Psychonaut 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, all the sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions. Approaching an original synthesis as well.--Nydas 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per my original statement from December 29th. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete My crap sense is tickling. Danny Lilithborne 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article now provides a lot of references, but these are all to mere use of the term. Notability would be established only if the term were the actual subject of multiple, independent published works. If such citations can be provided, then the article can be kept, or recreated in the future, but as-is it doesn't meet WP:N. —Psychonaut 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG/Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:V in triplicate (which is policy, not a guideline, as is WP:NEO). The Delete votes here (as in the original AfD) seem to be either jokes ("crap sense"?), "per" votes (which is laziness/bad faith, as this is a debate, NOT a vote) or they don't quote actual policy. Using bureaucracy to commit article murder is bad faith. Shame! You hug your mother with the hands on the same fingers you type these delete votes with? Oy! You should BE so lucky! -- weirdoactor 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it's a one-off joke. Coverage is trivial, not substantive. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)