Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Status

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Status

edit
Duke Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced and un-encyclopedic entry. Previous prod removed by creator without improvement. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is referenced. Please be more specific about possible "encyclopædic" improvements. The writing style seems very similar to that of most Wikipedia articles. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A music video on YouTube is not a reliable source, especially considering that neither "duke" nor "status" appears in the lyrics. Neither is a use by a redlinked author who is not mentioned anywhere on the website of the newspaper for which he has supposedly written. The article does not even define the term coherently, and since neither the author (Mr. Fantastique) nor Google nor Urban Dictionary can provide any useful information, I call this a hoax (especially in light of this diff). AnturiaethwrTalk 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. A link to a second music video has appeared since my comment, and I've wasted my time sitting through it to find out that the "singer" says neither "duke" nor "status" at any point in the song. Not that it matters, considering that that wouldn't be a reliable source anyway. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are two example of pop-culture references, not citations of scholarly sources. That's too bad that you can't understand English song : I would just advise you to listen more closely. Otherwise, thank you for showing an example of how the article has been recently improved in your first post. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I take umbrage at your suggestion that I am less than competent in my native language; I am assuming good faith on your part, but it is becoming difficult, particularly given your later edits. Furthermore, while I concede that I found "Better Not Waste My Time" too distasteful to sit through it more than once and may have missed a reference, "I'm That Guy" has its lyrics helpfully provided along with the video. Finally, the issue of the YouTube videos is moot: even if "duke status" were mentioned in either song, that alone would neither create nor demonstrate notability. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here are the lyrics to the N Dubz song. No dukes in there anywhere....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. While trying to keep a clear head and not taking offense at our discussion, please take into account that even if one piece of evidence doesn't provide unequivocal proof, it is still a valid part of the demonstration process that I have undertaken. The videos available on YouTube (nuance : they are not YouTube videos) are not moot. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Libération is not a free, online newspaper. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. That simply means that its articles cannot be accessed online for free. The New York Times is the same way: its articles, after a certain time period, must be paid for. There are still, however, records of them on the website. Libération.fr does not mention Dustin Bradley anywhere. Now, if this is simply because Libération chooses not to have records of all its articles online, fine; at least cite the title of the article so that the reference can be confirmed in, say, a library archive. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I agree : a more developed citation of sources would be a very positive contribution to the article. Let's remember that the article is only 24 hours old. The Urban Dictionary definition, as well as its positive feedback, should be enough to appease some of the naysaying and reactionary opposition seen here. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether or not that is the case, I have. First off, Youtube videos do not constitute reliable sources ("[S]elf-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable [as sources]"), which require "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," not a hallmark of Youtube. Secondly, I've just scanned all 137 unique Google hits for the phrase, almost all of which have nothing to do with the creator's assertion and none of which constitute reliable sources. Finally, Mr. Fantastique's one cite to "Dustin Bradley" comes up a cropper; Liberation magazine's website turns up nothing on internal searches for Bradley. [1]. Finally, "Duke status" is not found on Urban Dictionary [2], to which users can add things at will anyway. It's beginning to look a lot like WP:HOAX.  Ravenswing  15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article as well as your facts. You jump to conclusions with your visible no bias risking to exclude something valuable from Wikipedia. I must reiterate that Libération is not an online newspaper - arguments based on this misconception are invalid. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Please do not base your voting on the impulsive and erroneous comments left by other users. A few corrections : Firstly, Duke Status exists on Urban Dictionary. Secondly, while those two videos are available on Youtube, neither of them are self-produced and both artists have articles on Wikipedia. John Stewart and Dave Leno are also available on Youtube, but this does not invalidate them. All these confusions would be avoided if you simply took the time to look at the article before voting to delete it. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst the reference to "Better Not Waste My Time" seems to be ill-founded, the refence in "I'm That Guy" is correct. The urban dictionary does refer to Duke Status (look under Section 2, "Duke of Earl") and as those who do actually read Libération know, Dustin Bradley has contributed several articles, admittedly on an irregular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.79.253.185 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 22 April 2008 — 130.79.253.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*Comment: Hits on the French Google for "Dustin Bradley" + "Liberation" + "magazine" = zero. [3]. Happily, my city library does carry Libération, and I work across the street from it. I think I know what I'm doing on my lunch hour.  Ravenswing  16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, please rectify your comments concerning "self-produced material" and the affirmation that Duke Status does not exist on Urban Dictionary. One last time - do you understand that even "French Google" cannot extract texts from printed-only material ? Libération is not a magazine, it's a newspaper. Please defer to people who either are more knowledgeable about these subjects or who at least have time to do proper research. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the issue you cited, or for the issues immediately before or after it. Libération's online searchable archives, which go back two years and are readily navigable to anyone with a smattering of French, have no citations for Bradley either. Nice try.  Ravenswing  16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Libération is not an online newspaper. It's full contents are not available online. Check the print version - I'm sure there must be at least one in Boston. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... I believe that "Nothing in the issue you cited, or for the issues immediately before or after it" covered that.  Ravenswing  16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that personal research ? Now I see why it's forbidden... --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Out of curiosity (since the whole point is moot; see OlenWhitaker's comment, below) why would the English phrase "duke status" appear in "Libération"? Why not, as Mr. Fantastique originally said it was called, "Etat de duc"? Or, even better, "État de duc"? AnturiaethwrTalk 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a moot point, since in going through the issues of the newspaper I mentioned above, there is in fact no article by this "Dustin Bradley" chap, whomever he might be.  Ravenswing  22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Diacritics over capital letters is very rare in France, and usually only used in an exclusively upper-case context. It would be "Etat de duc." Bradley's article appeared in English. I'll try to find another instance of him using it, but it is likely that it will be in print only since Google has failed to turn up further Internet results regarding him. Please remember that printed sources are to be considered with equal weight as Internet ones, and the underpresentation of "Duke Status" online does not give a clear image of its actual usage. Hopefully the existence of such a Wikipedia article will clear all this up. Please stop authoritatively dismissing contrary arguments as "moot." It has been demonstrated that the "Delete" camp has made far more erroneous and offhand comments than the "Keepers." --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you claim. You have also claimed that this phrase was used in the Youtube videos, which it is not. You claimed that Libération could not be searched online. In fact, you can search its archives online going back two years. You claimed that this neologism was used in this Bradley article. Not only does that article not exist, no evidence has been proffered that this Bradley fellow does. You claimed that a "Duke status" entry existed in the Urban Dictionary, and in fact it's a casual mention in another entry. You have been asked to provide proper sources, as Wikipedia policy and guidelines require, for your article, and you've also been given several links so you can review those policies for yourself and gain an understanding of what is required. Instead of either providing reliable sources or conceding that you have none, you've reacted incivilly throughout. At this point, I'm comfortable with the closing admin deciding on the merits.  Ravenswing  13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. WP:NEO guidelines clearly state: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." (emphasis in original) The article points to two music videos and a newspaper writer who have used the word. That might be true, but it doesn't make the term notable and wouldn't even if scores of usages were reported. A secondary mention in an Urban Dictionary entry for another term does not approach WP:RS referencing guidelines either. Even the author of the article appears to be aware of the shaky notability; take for example the statement that "[a]mateur ethnologists have yet to come up with a precise definition of duke status." The second half of this sentence clearly indicates that the term in question is nebulous and doesn't specifically mean anything in particular, and the first half obliquely indicates that even the author would agree that professional ethnologists have better things to do with their time than keep track of obscure protoneologisms like this one. This case seems pretty clear cut to me. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Two of the four sources cite to YouTube. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be able to understand your negative reactions if you would at least represent the issue properly. YouTube is not cited as a source, as one nay-sayer tried to misinform us. It is nothing more than professional music videos legally and freely available on YouTube. As for OlenWhitaker's comments : would he have me refer to the Urban Dictionary as professionals ? Rightly calling them amateurs is a testament to the author's sincerity to properly represent the matter. If we could keep the basic facts straight we will arrive more easily at consensus. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Urban Dictionary would constitute amateurs and I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Rather, I was attempting to point out that if the best source one can find is an amateur one (e.g. Urban Dictionary,) then that is a strong indicator of a lack of notability for a subject, at least as pertains to inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally speaking, a professional, scholarly work needs to have been published on a topic such as this for it to be considered notable. Amateur sources, even many such sources, just don't meet the sourcing guidelines spelled out in WP:RS. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:14, 23 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duke_Status&oldid=1137805942"