Talk:Ratfucking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
— JIP | Talk 10:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- What? Really? And after The Onion even made reference to it? It may be obscure, but it's an aspect of Watergate. I'd certainly vote to keep it. --WWB 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 Nomination for Deletion
I have tagged this entry for deletion for a variety of reasons. I understand that a proposal for deletion has been done before, without reaching concensus, as noted on this talk page. However, this occured on October 20, 2005. In a time period of over two years and five months, no contributions have been made to this entry whatsoever that justify its continued inclusion in Wikipedia.
This article should be validly considered for deletion for the following reasons under WP:DEL#REASON
- Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
-Specifically, it is not a dictionary - It is not a collection of slang / idioms - It is not a collection of original research (the sources do not back up the info included in the article... more below on the sources) - It is not, per WP:IINFO, a collection of indiscriminate info.
- Article has no reliable sources or verifiability, per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. The article says things, but the limited "sources" cited don't actually include the information used in the article. An examination of the sources:
-A Daily Kos link that uses the term, but doesn't actually provide the information on the term that the article includes other than notionally linking it to Watergate. -A "Green Institute" link which requires registration to see any content, thus proving useless as a source as the link provides no information on the term - A Rolling Stone article that mentions the term, again in association with Watergate, but again, providing none of the explanations that the article invents - Two Namebase.org sources that do not mention the term - Two sparticus.schoolnet sources which doe not mention the term - A jstor link which does not mention the term - A sniggle.net link which does not mention the term - A wizbangblog link which does not mention the term - A military.com link which does not mention the term - A Huffington Post article that is self-referential in that it's sole citation of the term is this dubious Wikipedia article itself (ie: the source for the source of this Wikipedia article is this Wikipedia article).
- Article fails to meet WP:N on notability.
- There is no significant coverage by reliable sources -The term itself is merely a slang term associated with pillaging MREs (maybe, again - the "source" for this never actually uses the term, thus is worthless), and a slang term about individuals associated with the Watergate scandal via All the Presidents Men.
As a whole, the article presents random information without relation to the topic itself. After mentioning that the term means sabotage or dirty tricks in politics (without sourcing), it mentions the Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr fued for seemingly no reason. The justification, it would seem, is that their fall-out occured because "dirty tricks" used in politics... and "ratfucking" is dirty tricks too! A list of various, random political dirty tricks used throughout history with no relation to the term is not a valid use of this article. Afterwords, it delves mostly into a summary of Watergate-related issues that, if notabe, should be included in other sources - specifically within Watergate scandal, or perhaps All the President's Men. I do not question the accuracy of the sources cited, nor their relevance as sources related to Watergate issues. However, they DO NOT address the term ratfucking.
The justifications to keep this article seem to be: -The Onion made a joke about it -A lukewarm keep vote, tacitly admitting that it needs to be moved to wiktionary as slang but mainly against the deletion because the deletion-position of the nominator (irrelevant fact) - The term has something to do with Watergate, thus it must be notable (flawed logic) - The fact that it's factual, verifiable, neutral (factual depends on verifiable, and as I have noted above - there has been no verification of this article's content) - We should keep it because the youngins today "don't understand" because they weren't around when Watergate would happened. Also, those whippersnappers should keep off my lawn. - This article is notable because the Huffington Post cites this article (circular logic)
None of these arguements seem valid to me. Following the article's first two unsourced sentences on what the article means, none of its content actually follows up on this, or is relevant to the term. I'm sure it may be claimed that, "Okay, but this article can be improved to provide proper sources." But the fact is that the article, given ample time and opportunity, has not been improved in the 2+ years since it's last vote for deletion, and does not seem that it will given a lack of verifiable, relevant sources. Furthermore, the existance of the article is in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's policy of not being a slang dictionary. The fact that, following the introduction of this short dictionary definition, a series of Watergate factoids already covered by the Watergate article are included, does not suddenly make it a valid article.
Discussion welcome, 71.255.235.176 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are several references in the article, so there's definitely a claim of notability. There's also several Google News and Google Scholar hits. Given that there's a claim of notability and that a deletion would be controversial, this should go to AfD if you think it should be deleted. Removing prod. Klausness (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
