Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerluck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - All keep votes were made by socks of User:Yaktail. Chris 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beerluck

Beerluck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced article that appears to be completely non-notable. Quite possibly made up, and clearly unencyclopedic. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as something made up one day. No sources of any kind to assert notability. DarkAudit (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. Only about 580 googlehits and most are either blogs or not in english .--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very few hits on Google, nothing even close to a reliable source to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do NOT delete. Etymological rules based on pre-existing usage would have preempted a vast majority of words now seen in common usage or idioms (i.e. Rule of Thumb) from entering the English language. While we must consider the negative influence of Recentism, as someone who has attended a beerluck, I can testify to their existence. --ashwin User:ashwinsodhi User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable sources independent of the subject. None of that is here, or appears to be forthcoming. DarkAudit (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Nakon 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There are reasons that it is not common practice for people to sample a wide variety of beers. Back in 1995, my friends and I had a "beers of the world" party with six six-packs of beers, and it's like drinking different liquors. Instead of Tubthumping, the result is everybody getting sick the next day. At best, this is a variation on BYOB. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, What do you call a party where there are different varieties of cannabis? Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read WP:RS. Blogs and personal webpages aren't enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:RS --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "I've been to one" doesn't mean squat when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. "Some dude's blog" is not a reliable, verifiable, and independent source. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Regardless of Mandsford et al.'s wimpiness, it is a human rights outrage that Wiki would delete such a benevolent and articulate article. Beerluck's have been around since the origination of beer; do not be persuaded by the fact that this cannot be etymologically verified. If etymological root-laws held true, we would have no new or interesting variations of our language. No 'w00t'. Carl Sagan wouldn't even be accepted as a common noun (How messed up would that be?) Beerluck actually appeared in Book VI of Plato's Republic (par. 511): "The beginning of the beerluck is the most important part of the work." Rather than insist upon a proto-fascist and fiercely anti-intellectual modality of language, why don't we begin to tarry with freedom a little bit more? The freedom to potluck. kylenstone (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 — kylenstone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You must understand, Kylen-- my stomach was wimpy, not I. I fearlessly did original research (back in 1995, we referred to it as "sedation needed") but either the mixture of the non-notable beers (or lack of verifiable sources) resulted in a deletion of the stomach contents. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of that is relevant. All articles in Wikipedia must establish notability using reliable, independent sources. This article doesn't have a single source or even claim notability. Calling it "proto-fascist and fiercely anti-intellectual" to delete an article that clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia is ridiculous. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yaktail. It is a sockpuppetry case I started about all these single-purpose accounts in this AfD, who I believe are all connected. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the very passionate appeals above, non of them address the deletion concerns. Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete per WP:Boosh!. I deeply resent being accused of sock-puppetry .--pmatarese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatarese (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete utter made up nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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.