Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booger


 * Please use the talk page to make comments on this closed discussion.

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus).  Grue  6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Booger
Delete - Booger is not the scientific name for this. If this is to be discussed at all then it should be discussed under a scientific name.
 * Keep there is no elevated scientific term for it, so pushing for deletion based upon the lack of a scientific name is an absurd and uninformed objection.  additionally, there is useful and accurate information on that page in it's current form.  lesotho
 * Anonymous nomination by 152.163.100.14
 * Speedy keep. Wikipedia is not scientific-elitist. Is there even a scientific term for this? Nickptar 08:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, the name not being scientific is not a reason for deletion and since this got enough content, I can't really see another reason to kill it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with nose-picking and redirect. Uppland 10:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or Move, as above. Booger-related humor may want to go, though. Sonic Mew 10:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mucus. Booger-related humor wants to stay, but WP policy requires it to be deleted or BJAODN'ed.  Barno 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm saying this. Keep.  The article seems well written, discusses the etymology.  Some of it would be lost on a merge.  I think it could be cleaned up.  The humor is unnecessary.  Wikibofh 14:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no reason that a chapter of nose-picking jokes cannot be started in the Jokebook. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to nasal mucus to try to raise the tone. Dunc|&#9786; 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup Nobody actually uses terms as "nasal mucus". Booger/bogey are the most common terms used. Seems reasonably well written though the joke section probably doesn't belong here. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I forsee the petrol/gasoline debate coming around again. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Not the most scientific name, not the most dignified name, not the most official name, not the most accurate name, not the most medically professional name, but the most common name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And here it is, beginning ... Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per Dunc. Funny bone and pointer finger are both redirects as well. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Merge, just don't delete...--do you want your kids to grow up, not knowing the word 'booger'? ChercherEccles 19:23, 2005 Jun 22 (according to edit history. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopaedia.  For words, see a dictionary. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was a failed attempt to move fart lighting to flatulence ignition. Kappa 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mrs Grundy is not dead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Grundy isn't either ;) -- Jonel | Speak 04:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good article, though it could use some illustration.  I've no idea why anyone should suggest that an article which is mostly about an American word and its place in American culture should be under a name in a language never spoken in America. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator's suggestion is to put it under "a scientific name", you are making the statement that the language of science is not spoken in America. That is most definitely untrue. Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * keep please we have a precedence for this at the fart lighting aticle Yuckfoo 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Phoenix2 23:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, its a common term and is notable article. I wouldn't neccesarily object to Merge however. Falphin 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. as per Falphin above. Also, oppose merging and strongly oppose renaming.  The common name may inspire its share of jokes, but that is why we edit articles.  Booger is the best common name, and, while informal, it isn't quite vulgar.  Content now exists here, and more could be added, about the excretion so plentiful in human life.  Xoloz 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as well as second Xoloz. This isn't gas/petrol, which is diffcult because soth are widely used, but a much simpler debate.  Methinks Uncle G would enjoy the arguement, though. humblefool&reg; 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. The gasoline/petrol debate diversified into a discussion about Commonwealth English and United States English.  A booger/bogey debate would end up doing the same.  Even the "rename the article to a technical name and redirect to it" suggestion is exactly paralleled here (Fossil fuel for spark-plug-containing internal combustion engines and nasal mucus). Note that a requested moves discussion has just begun on the talk page ....  Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Merge with mucus to avoid redudant information and add the rest to BJADN. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 05:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not put it into the Jokebook? Uncle G 15:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mucus. JamesBurns 08:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Mucus. --Angr/undefined 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's now a Nose-picking Jokes chapter in the Jokebook. Uncle G 15:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almafeta 23:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Mucus.
 * Merge into Mucus. JYOuyang 20:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mucus. 64.12.116.136 Jun 26, 2005
 * Merge with Mucus. 205.188.116.65 June 2005 01:47
 * Keep. The article is about a word and its usage, not mucus per se. Leibniz 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Mucus article. 345.238.896.78
 * Keep as per Leibniz UkPaolo 4 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.