Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and doughnut


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ball and doughnut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod declined on the grounds that "everyone knows it" and "it's unreferenced but it's helpful", so coming here to do it the hard way. For something "everyone knows", I certainly don't know it and nor does teh interwebz - and for something on a popular-culture related topic in an English speaking country to generate zero Ghits is beyond implausible. Even if a source could be found, I very much doubt that this could ever be considered a notable term, and at most would warrant an "also known as..." at NODD. Mogism (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on. It went CSD and I deliberately recreated it to PROD it, then the PROD is not even discussed? What's going on, who is up their own ahem? I mostly gnome at RfD. It is for you to show me that it is unhelpful, not the other way around. I thought we were here to help readers find information that they are looking for. It is referenced by the way (albeit not well), another editor has added one: quod erat demonstrandum: that is because we make a start and then improve. It's already been marked with a TV stub for example. I'll take it to admin abuse, then. I am a good-faith editor trying to make it better for our readers; not sure what you are doing. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by "It went CSD and I deliberately recreated it to PROD it, then the PROD is not even discussed?" or "I'll take it to admin abuse". No, we're not here to help readers find information that they are looking for - we're not Wikia. We're here to provided referenced information on notable topics, and if you want something to be on Wikipedia it's down to you to provide evidence of both.
 * Someone hasn't "added a reference", they've added a YouTube clip of Breakfast Time with no apparent relevance other than being on BBC1. If you're so confident you can find references for this, why have you not managed to find one? Mogism (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are not here to help readers find the information they are looking for, what are we here for then? To examine our own backsides? This is why we have and  and so on: we make a start and others will bung in as they have done numerous times in the past. I live a thousand miles away from the UK and it is hard for me to find references: I actually checked the BBC Breakfast Time reference did you? Others probably can do so more easily: I can only do what I can. I do a lot of Hungarian articles on English Wikipedia because mirabile dictu I am in Hungary and I can; which improves the encylopaedia. I can't even get BBCtv. In fact I can't gat any TV. Now, stop abusing me on my talk page please. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Where have I "abused you on your talk page"?
 * "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Again, if you think this could ever meet WP:V and WP:N, find even one reference. Mogism (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think hassling another good-faith editor is apart from abuse? How would you describe it: good-natured debate or something? Doesn't seem like it to me. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because WP:RS also applies if you want: and how many thousands of articles have not got RS. I add them to make them RS and V and N. And thousands of articles are not RS or V or N but that is WP:NOTFINISHED. Don't start talking to me about "policy": start trying to make the encyclopaedia better. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Where am I "hassling" you? I've made three posts to your talk in my entire life: two notifications, and one reply to a bizarre comment from you about my supposed "admin rights".
 * This discussion is clearly not going anywhere, and I'm not going to engage with you any further if you're going to post nonsense like "Tell me where you live and we will fight it out man to man". Feel free to try to convince anyone else who turns up to this AFD that the references exist. Mogism (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a slang term dictionary. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced and not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The creator's hand-waving above doesn't carry conviction. We do have an article about NODD, this content could go there iff sources can be found. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. I don't see any evidence that this is notable.  We're not a collection of indiscriminate information.  We do have inclusion criteria, and this does not seem to meet them.  "It's useful" is an argument to avoid.  I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this, but if any do show up, the article can be recreated.  A YouTube video, however, is not good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic is a duplicate of History_of_BBC_television_idents. Redirecting/merging would only make sense if this content had any sources, otherwise the dubious claims should be deleted per usual policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence it meets notability standards. Amortias (T)(C) 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no reliable sources for this term, then it's at best a neologism or just use once for all we know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2014 (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.