Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 4 January 2007

Jewdar

Jewdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)
  • If people come to Misplaced Pages to have neologisms explained, they will be sorely disappointed, since that is not and has never been the purpose of Misplaced Pages. They should go to Urban Dictionary instead. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 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)

• i c wut u did there. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's a one-off joke. Coverage is trivial, not substantive. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's a many-off joke. Coverage is not heavy, not solely focusing on the term in the articles, but not passing mentions either, they're important parts of each article, the articles would not be the same without them; and there are a lot of articles. AnonEMouse 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The original concerns seem to have been dealt with. WP:NEO does not apply - this is not newly coined. Dicdef does not apply, as the article in its current form goes beyond a simple dicdef. WP:RS seems to be taken care of, though it is debatable whether Jewdar has been the subject of multiple works. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if you take out the stuff that is sourced to Urban Dictionary, mailing lists and forums, you're left with "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews." Why anyone would want an encyclopedia article on a joke neologism that has zero impact on society anyway is beyond me. Recury 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're also left with citations from Salon and the Washington Post. You must have left that out that whilst rushing to edit an article about NASCAR, which no doubt has a HUGE impact on society. “Delete” arguments that posit how an article does not impact THAT PARTICULAR editor’s life never cease to amuse and entertain. Keep ‘em comin’, folks.-- weirdoactor 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Citations to reliable sources that say next to nothing about the topic, yes. Maybe read a little more closely before posting next time. But tell us, then. How have Jewdars affected you? Recury 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If by "next to nothing", you mean "articles that assert the notability of Jewdar", then you are SPOT ON. I'll read more carefully if you promise to do the same, especially before making counterfactual arguments in an AfD. And re: "Jewdars" (sic), the term has no plural; much like deer or moose. As to how Jewdar has affected me; I have it, passed from my mother and father, and it has led me to MANY tasty meals and lovely parties. So there. I’m not sure how jewdar has affected me PERSONALLY should be relevant as to it’s inclusion in the encyclopedia, as the last time I checked, it’s called “Misplaced Pages”, and not “weirdoactorpedia” or “recurypedia”, and thus the entries should probably reflect a broader range of needs and experiences than yours and mine. After all, what is Misplaced Pages but “a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field”, correct? -- weirdoactor 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not talking about notability (although that case for deletion can certainly be made). I'm talking about having sources to actually write an article from. Even if they did assert notability (which they don't) that would leave us with an article that says: "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews. Jewdar is a notable neologism that has been used upwards of 3 times in published writing." Find some reliable sources that talk about the term enough that you could actually write something substantive about it, or it's going to be deleted. Recury 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Wow. Were you using your "scary voice" just them? Oooooooooooh. Booga booga. -- weirdoactor 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:CIVIL User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Flipping my Twoface coin. Heads! ---> KEEP! WP:IAR for the win! Tarinth 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources of the widespread usage of this article. And please discount Tarinth's !vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, but can we at least agree that this should be nominated for WP:LAME if it comes back to AfD again? Tarinth 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates