Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I don't see any justification for the claims of bad-faith on the nominator's part. -Splash talk 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cart00ney
apparent nn selfref neologism Savidan 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism.--み使い Mitsukai 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparent lazy or bad faith nomination of a work in progress nine minutes after its creation . I've also mentioned this on WT:AFD. See also previous discussions on WT:AFD of how AFD is in danger of getting external controls placed on it by the Foundation in reaction to the remarkably bad public relations the standard of conduct on AFD causes with the outside world. Did you make any good-faith attempt effort to contact the creator, an editor in good standing with a long contribution history? You might think a nomination is no big deal, but the actual content creators frequently feel differently - David Gerard 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and keep - David Gerard 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Gamaliel 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * David, I think your attempt to muddle the issue with vague references to a change in the system is irrelevant and is in bad-faith. The issue of external control is not relevant here.  We need to look at the worthiness of this article on it's own. ---J.Smith 20:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep In fairly wide use. Possible Wiktionary candidate, but explaining the history of the term I think makes it encyclopedic enough. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ~500 hits on Google Groups. At first glance, this is not really notable, but "george bush" (exact phrase) only gets one million or so hits there, while it gets 24 million in the real thing. Therefore, a rough estimate indicates "cart00ney" would roughly have equivalent notability as a phrase with 12,000 hits on Google. I can't really think of another metric to work out possible notability without being extremely familiar with Usenet, so consider this a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All the hits being from Usenet begs the question of whether this term is notable outside of Usenet (i.e. if it deserves its own article). So far you have just demonstrated that it should be mentioned in the Usenet article. Savidan 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Usenet has a whole subculture of its own; it's ridiculous to expect every notable phrase it coins to be included in the main article. Johnleemk | Talk 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Internet slang. Friday (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Actually, that may not be the best target. Merge somewhere useful. Friday (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into barratry The Crow 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ''And by the way, when did "neologism" become sufficient as a sole criterion for deletion?
 * "neologism" implies original research - David Gerard 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is some association between neologisms and original research, but to assume OR as a foregone conclusion is just lazy. The Crow 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Matthew Brown Ruby 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: of course it's a neologism, it says so right there in the article. Have you actually read WP:NEO? As for "nn", I re-googled for both spellings, and even restricting the search to just the news.admin.* groups I got 18,700 hits of which the first 100 only go back to 26 January. I'm still trying to work out WTF "selfref" can be referring to. HTH —Phil | Talk 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article originally mentioned something about the phrase being applied to Wikipedia admins. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hadn't spotted that. Crud, someone who's a worse nit-picker than me?. —Phil | Talk 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even with the reference to wikipedia removed, if the majority of those google hits are from news.admin, this still seems pretty self-referential to me. If this phrase belonged to a listserv not frequented by wikipedians, it would have already been speedied. Savidan 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What? How is NANAE/news.admin.* self-referential? All of the above predate Wikipedia. Are you mistaking usenet for a Wikipedia mailing list? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that many wikipedians use NANAE/news.admin.*, a fact which should become obvious just by reading this AfD. Unfortunately, it appears that even the most experienced editors conflate the notability guidelines with whatever they happen to be familiar with. Savidan 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, all that becomes clear by reading this AfD is that you've managed to attract a number of Wikipedians that read NANAE. In any event, many Wikipedians use the Internet, but we don't consider Internet memes self-referential either, because neither reference Wikipedia. In any event, notability doesn't have to be universal. Notability within a unique non-trivial subculture is still notability. :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Appropriate and relevant article Fred Bauder 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Internet slang. Lightly used neologism that IMO doesn't support a separate article.--Isotope23 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge has already happened. No logical reason to keep a separate article.--Isotope23 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per David and Matt. Guettarda 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Internet slang. There is no evidence that this term is widely used outside Usenet with 5000 Google hits for an Internet term. . Delete Merged into Internet slang. No reason to have a seperate article for a neologism.Capitalistroadster 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've seen this in common use for years. Being an internet colloquialism doesn't make it non-notable. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The self-referential part, in case anyone missed it, has already been removed.  Friday (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and shoot the nominator . Alph a x &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 05:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, The fact that something is mainly used on usenet does not make it non-notable. Some of us have been on Usenet for 15 years or more! -- Arwel (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been around the net for 15+ years, and IMO having an entire article for this particular slang term is quite silly. Yes, we all think that the goings-on in our corner of the net are significant, but we're usually kidding ourselves. We've already got List of Internet slang and News.admin.net-abuse.email.  Surely there's an appropriate place in one of those articles to put a couple sentences about this term?  Friday (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless there is much more that can be said about the term, then Merge to List of Internet slang. It certainly should not simply be deleted in any case. older ≠ wiser 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and established neologism. Or merge as appropriate. Kappa
 * "Established neologism" - now there's an oxymoron for you! D e nni  &#9775;  00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no need to merge to internet slang as evidence above indicates. Regarding the process that brought this here: The second an article sticks its head into main space it's fair game.  We tell neophytes this all the time, experianced editors should know it well enough.  Also, what's with the nebulous threats about action by the "foundation"? -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that. Talk about invented drama.  Sheesh.  Friday (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per norm. 3H 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Adrian Lamo. Turnstep 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete move to wiktionary if they want it. Its just a word; no attempt has been made to improve it in any way that would make it more encyclopaedic despite complaints about it being AfDd after 9 minutes, clearly there is nothing substantial to add in 4 days. Justinc 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this wasn't an article by a long-standing contributor, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, it would be a no brainer as neologisms are usually deleted.  This silly exercise in self-righteous chestbeating and vague legalistic threats from people who should really know better is cluttering up the fact that this is a standard submission of a neologism article to AfD and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Gamaliel 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- no merge. Excellent article on this term. -- JJay 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Internet slang. It is a somewhat used neologism that clearly does not need its own separate article. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As it has now been merged I suggest it redirect to List of Internet slang. Merge and delete I don't believe is an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The closing administrator can still transfer the authorship information, should the result of the debate be delete. 2. Replacing a page with a redirect constitutes a delete in my book, although preferably it should be made so that the redirect cannot simply be reverted. Savidan 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Savidan is saying. I support a redirect if that redirect can be made in such a way so that it cannot be reverted. If this is not possible, I am fine with the article being deleted. A problem I have seen with many deleted or redirected articles particularly neologism is that they end up being reverted/recreated. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Internet slang. If O RLY? barely gets an article, which is easily the most used neologism on the internet, then certainly this one word that's only used on Usenet, should not.  Rory 0 96 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into List of Internet slang . David D. (Talk) 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As it has now been merged into the List of Internet slang this page can now be deleted without loss of content David D. (Talk) 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete is not an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance - see Deletion policy. --Stormie 22:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied to this above. It's always an option. Savidan 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Just delete it outright. David D. (Talk) 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, per Dustimagic. --DJH47 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete then Merge /w List of Internet slang and send to wikinary. This is a definition of a word.  Despite it's potential notability, it will never be encyclopedic. However it is very worthy of a dictionary entry and would be a great addition to that project. It also deserves a mention in the related list.  ---J.Smith 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere - not notable enough for its own article. violet/riga (t) 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Has some value, but not enough.  --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Internet slang and redirect, as per Dustimagic and Rory096. --Stormie 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as suggested above (merge already done). It's marginally notable and states it's a neologism; there are plenty of jargon terms used in certain groups, like this, which do not warrant whole articles - the merge performed provides all the necessary information on this term. -- Mithent 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect The contents are certainly interesting, but as a standalone article, I don't see how this can escape WP:WINAD. Choess 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per cogent arguments above. D e nni &#9775;  00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, what part of neologism do you people not understand? And David Gerard's slap at the nomination is not only a violation of WP:AGF, but absurd.  I'm also sick and tired of David Gerard's claims that he speaks for the Foundation.  If this were the case, he could supply us with proof, which so far he has failed to do.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we understand the term quite well. From the page Avoid_neologisms: Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits - Turnstep 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- This article is a neologism. It's also not much more than a dictionary definition and I don't see it ever improving; thus it just isn't an article. Reyk 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete More nonsense internet speak that no-one will ever want to look up. Keresaspa 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agonized over this one, since clearly people have strong feelings about it. However, the subject of the article just isn't noteable.  If this were a term invented anywhere else other than the internet, there wouldn't even be a debate.  The article doesn't amount to much more than a dictionary definition and it's unlikely that it ever will.  I don't have any objection to a move to Wiktionary, but this just isn't noteable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I wouldn't have any problem with lower standards for inclusion, but it doesn't make sense to incluse something that would have been deleted in a heartbeat if it weren't related to the internet. NoIdeaNick 04:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly not a neologism, as the references attest to. It is currently a dicdef, but it could be much more, and as such needs editting, not deleting. Batmanand 15:13, 16 February 2006 (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.