Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clbuttic mistake


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Clbuttic mistake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is simply a neologism coined to describe a recent minor news event. It is sourced mostly to blogs. It is not (currently) a notable term. Deli nk (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete - WP:NOT a dic wangtionary. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge to Scunthorpe Problem -- not that there's much here to merge, but a reference and name drop there might be warranted. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep lots of hits, including some in news. Could probably be merged somewhere too--there are similar pages out there. JJL (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be notable. Merging as Serpent suggests might not be a bad idea though.  Peacock (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep related to the Scunthorpe Problem and to the Cupertino effect but not the same. Clbuttic gets cited on Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=556) which, yes, is a blog but a relaible source on linguistic effects on the net.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the Language Log article has been updated to say that the term turned out not to be notable, because all the Google matches for it turned out to be other blog entries and the like, all referring to just one original error. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The update was on the prevalence of actual instances of 'clbuttic' that aren't references to the original Apple reference. That is neither here nor there in the use of 'Clbuttic mistake' as a generic term for this kind syllabic automated censorship (cf poor Tyson Gay). The point is the phenomenon exists and is documented(in the generic sense not constrained to the classic/clbuttic instance) and has been referred to as the 'clbuttic mistake'.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable outside the blogosphere. VG &#x260E; 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article deserves buttbuttination due to lack of notability. Edison (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (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.