Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue waffle

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 keep. Sandstein 07:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue waffle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Silly neologism that briefly made headlines. One airhead does not notability make, no evidence this is in any way remarkable outside this one incident and some online shock types. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references seem to be mostly bogus -- for example the link to [bluewaffles.org] adds nothing. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly-defined fictional entity. The phrase had some minor coverage in a couple of newspapers on account of a New Jersey council woman falling for a prank and mentioning the phrase a meeting. Nothing to indicate that it is a phenomenon that passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that this hoax meets the general notability guideline. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many stupid things are notable, unfortunately. Women are most often the victim of this hoax. Just like Jenkem, this hoax has been around for a number of years, and the subject of coverage in multiple outlets over time, which is why this article has existed without debate for over six years, and currently gets over 2,000 views per day. See [1]; [2]; [3]; [4] (#8); [5]; [6]; [7]; [8] (last question). Certainly the article could be improved, however.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena, per Bishonen, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Milowent. Meets notability through sustained coverage over several years in reliable sources. The article can be improved, but WP:NOTCENSORED. SSTflyer 05:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about censorship? This is entirely because it's a neologism one dope happened to fall for once, received only minimal coverage then, and hasn't received any at all since. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although stupid, notable. I don't like it, but we have to keep this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Milowent said, this has received significant independent coverage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason for deletion. Milowent has shown continued coverage outside the one incident, contrary to what nom said.Smartyllama (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale was not IDONTLIKEIT, it's that the coverage in question is 1. extremely minimal and 2. entirely unremarkable. A few mentions here and there across the internet is hardly indicative of lasting notability, even though it's admittedly hilarious that someone would actually fall for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember when this was in the news. It still gets a lot of buzz in forums. Mindhunter77 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why in gods name did I think searching on Google Images was a brilliant idea?, That was horrifying to say the least!, Anyway that aside it's a notable thing and seems to get alot of hits etc, As stupid as it is it is notable and as an encyclopedia we cover everything no matter how stupid (or in this case f'ed up) it is... –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 21 April 2016 (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.