Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic (behaviour)
- 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 was DELETE. -Splash - tk 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic (behaviour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Slang term without references. This isn't urbandictionary.com ccwaters 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Nonsense. In any case, it's nn and unsourced and doesn't belong here. Seed 2.0 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? It's not nonsense. This is a term in constant use in these two localities, and as such deserves its small slot in the "slang" section of wikipedia. Please explain what you mean by "nn" and how exactly a slang term can be sourced?
thanks -toaduk Toad 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NN = non/not notable ccwaters 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh.. the second question... read WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. ccwaters 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for picking up my slack, ccwaters. I'm a bit busy at the moment and that's exactly how I would have replied. Appreciate it -- Seed 2.0 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."
- "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
- "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
- "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
- "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
- "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
- To put it directly, if you can't demonstrate published sources for a slang term, it must be deleted. Anticipating the further question "How can a local slang term be a Wikipedia article then?" the answer is that it probably shouldn't be one. Ravenswing 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete nonsense. "Spinning out and thinking your friends head is a crow"? Come on. Even if this is a real term (which given the article I frankly doubt), Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Devil's advocate here. I'm not sure that's nonsense. Hallucinatory, sure, but not necessarily nonsensical. --Dennisthe2 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be localized slang, equivalent to "retarded" in definition and concept. Nonetheless, we aren't a dictionary, and this appears to be a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete nonsense. Acalamari 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.