Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bud smiley

Bud smiley
Not sufficiently notable to make in on Google, on used in a couple of non-notable websites. RickK 00:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to smiley. silsor 00:52, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Citing use of term on "non-notable websites" clearly shows complete lack of comprehension of where such terminology is utilized.  Sole use of Google as source of what is and what isn't 'notable' insufficient in itself.  There is more to the world than what is viewable via Google.  This entry is one bit of that wisdom.  /McK 02:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Really? Do tell me about the notability of a certain obscure context of a common smiley face. User has two edits and 'Bud smiley' is both of them. Lord Bob 02:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Needs a References section. Transfer verifiable information to smiley (where its visibility will be higher, anyway). &mdash; David Remahl 02:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to smiley, as suggested by Silsor. Lord Bob 02:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to smiley Rje 02:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Slang from a particular BBS/forum set. Well discussed, and no doubt an interesting observation, but not encyclopedic.  No real need for a redirect, since it would be inaccurate and unneeded, except to prevent recreation.  With the author here on VfD and being intelligent, I doubt that's necessary, as that's more commonly a troll and kiddie preventative.  Geogre 04:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How would it be misleading? &mdash; David Remahl 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I was trying not to be too expansive in my explanation, but here it goes. Ok:  this article discusses not an emoticon, but a use of emoticons in a psychological setting.  It's interesting, and whoever thought it up is quite observant.  Now, anyone searching Wikipedia for this title has encountered the websites where the term is used.  He or she will not be looking for "what is a smiley," but "what do these people mean when they talk about the Bud smiley?"  Therefore, a redirect (without a merge) to emoticon would be misleading.  It wouldn't give them what they sought.  Inasmuch as anyone looking for just the "smiley" won't put in "Bud smiley," we won't lose any people who are searching for the material under emoticon.  That's what I meant, anyway. Geogre 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or redirect to Emoticon, but do not redirect to Smiley.  This is a bunch of revisionist bullshit. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand this...These are my beliefs: a: a bud smiley is a smiling smiley used in a sarcastic way, at least in the minds of a small number of people. a: smiley talks about smilies. b: smilies are emoticons. c: emoticons talks about emoticons. Why is it more correct to redirect bud smiley to emoticon than it is to redirect to smiley? &mdash; David Remahl 05:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If any redirect, to emoticon, definitely not smiley. Memes that do not have sufficient vigour to leave their homepage have been outevolved. David, I think Radman's point is that redirecting will involve merging and this has no place in Smiley, which is about nice, smiley faces first and emoticons second, while emoticons is about the use of letters to express your "emotions" first, and, after all, your emoticon here, the bud smiley, is not really a happy, smiley thing, is it?Dr Zen 06:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I didn't bother to check smiley, I assumed I knew what it was about :-). &mdash; David Remahl 06:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure how this is done, but this term IS in use in the BBS community and those who use it are often asked to explain its meaning to newcomers. Thus the desire to have a reference to point to for those who want to know - a Wikipedia entry. Just because a term does not appear on Google or "notable" websites is not sufficient for deletion, per my understanding of the deletion policy. Ubiquity is not the threshold for any entry in Wikipedia. --207.30.172.102 15:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, but verifiability, neutrality and maintainability are requirements for all entries.  And notability is often a proxy for those requirements.  Topics which are too small are unlikely to gain the critical mass of editors necessary to ensure that the article remains safe from subtle vandalism.  By the way, you should know that anonymous comments on the VfD page are steeply discounted.  Please consider logging in.  Rossami (talk) 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Title is too obscure to be encyclopedic, contents are a loosely related ramble of speculations and POVs. Andrewa 05:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)