Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny Boiler (2nd nomination)
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 no consensus. Ezeu 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bunny Boiler
This page is a slang term and its etymology. It's already in Wiktionary so don't vote "transwiki". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny boiler for old discussion. Boongoman 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- If a term and its etymology is not welcome as an article in Wikipedia, perhaps slang too should be moved to Wiktionary. Or? --Kaninkokaren 07:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a dicdef. -- Whpq 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The 'uses in popular' culture section takes it above a simple dicidef. It's continued use in popular culture supports its 'encyclopaedicity'. Compare with 'Going commando' -- whereas this latter article is obviously much more developed, it is in a similar ilk. "Bunny boiler" has notability established, is an established term (as evidenced) and its continued use in popular culture asserts its encyclopedic value as a distinct article. The article needs work (the Big Brother material needs writing up and developing properly), but this is not grounds for deletion. The JPStalk to me 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Thuresson 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a neologism in the sense of that guide. It was established through a mainstream film and has been used in many credible independent mainstream media. The JPStalk to me 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a Wikimedia project for slang where users can write about proper use and examples of use. Obsessively cooking rabbits is not a real-life medical disorder. Thuresson 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't confuse the etymology and semantics of the term with the disorder. I'm in no way an expert, but borderline, bi-polar and manic depression are all very much indeed real disorders. --Kaninkokaren 07:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is certainly not a part of medical discourse, but its repeated use within culture (both mediated and everyday) has rendered it a real term. [1] The JPStalk to me 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, I see no difference between this and others in Category:Pejorative terms for people. The JPStalk to me 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a Wikimedia project for slang where users can write about proper use and examples of use. Obsessively cooking rabbits is not a real-life medical disorder. Thuresson 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a neologism in the sense of that guide. It was established through a mainstream film and has been used in many credible independent mainstream media. The JPStalk to me 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Dictdef with one of those useless "Hey! I saw it on The Simpson's!"-type "Uses in popular culture" sections stapled onto the end. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The Simpsons is known for its popular-culture commentary. . . . The popular culture section is now (mostly) referenced, taking it beyond original research. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep With 100,000 - 500,000 references on Google, this is hardly neologism nor something just used in popular culture. --Kaninkokaren 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure why that invalidates my point though? I showed up because I'm the author of the Swedish article, and the AfD for that triggered this AfD. --Kaninkokaren 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm removed the striking of Kaninkokaren's vote. However, it is fair comment to point out when those voting on AFD are from new accounts. It's unwise to strike out others' comments, though. The JPStalk to me 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete when it gets into DSM-IV, this neologism should come back. This is a joke of an article and as such, put into the archive of foregetfullness. --Bunnycooking-girl 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- User's first edit. Another from the Swedish AFD, per chance? The JPStalk to me 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The ten documented usages in popular culture in 20 years since "Fatal Attraction" does not show it is a popular neologism, much less the basis for an encyclopedia article. Edison 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ghits are convincing. The JPStalk to me 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ghits are blown up like balloons[2]! Try 753 wich a fairly large amount are usernames from forums and such and so on. --Boongoman 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Genuine uses of the phrase. The JPStalk to me 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ghits are blown up like balloons[2]! Try 753 wich a fairly large amount are usernames from forums and such and so on. --Boongoman 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ghits are convincing. The JPStalk to me 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Now passes WP:ATT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note. If the consensus is to delete, it should at least be redirected to Fatal Attraction, or soft-redirected to Wiktionary. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not just a dicdef given the "Uses in popular culture" section, so WP:WINAD is not applicable. A Google search provides around 200,000 unique hits, so I don't think WP:NEO applies. No other reason for deletion remains. Also, the article was improved during this AFD (see diff). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 18 March 2007 (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.
