Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuppers


 * 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   keep. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  05:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuppers

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

WP:NEO, does not belong on wikipedia. Perhaps on wiktionary? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prod. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-notable neologism. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect: Actually not a neologism, but the term is described no less fully at Oxford "-er", and has no need of its own article. ∙  AJCham   talk  22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really "fully" I should say. If editors think this content worth preserving a merge is the only way to do it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete: I've added some actual content to the page, which I think should now justify its notability. WikiWebbie (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisted since the scope of the article has been expanded would like to see further discussion as this invalidates the initial delete votes and there isn't comment after the changes to justify a keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is sufficient material in the article to demonstrate its meaning and use, although the introduction could explain the term better (e.g. making it clear between whom the competitions are held). Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete/Keep - My original vote was cast after my changes, but after the relisting I have to revalidate it. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 5,000 + news hits maybe not the same word, but that means this can simply be expanded to other meanings. Ikip (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added in the names of the two colleges in the news search, and while some results are just from the college newspapers, I see others referring to them by this term as well. Only 200 news results, not 5000, when you make sure to search for "Cuppers" AND "Oxford" OR "Cambridge"   D r e a m Focus  03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent coverage of what the article is about. Quoting news hits, without discussion of any of the results does not tell us anything. The only results from DreamFocus that are relevent to this article are ones from The Oxford Student, which is not a reliable independent source. If this can be shown to have received significant coverage in reliable sources then I will of course change my vote. Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous reliable sources for this and I had not the slightest difficulty citing ones such as The History of the University of Oxford and The encyclopaedia of Oxford. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a different interpretation of what 'Significant coverage' means. The best source, in 'The History of the University fo Oxford' (p202), is literally one sentence. The reference you have given from that source on page 214, is just mere mention of the word. The encylopedia of Oxford ref is similarly just mentions of the name. Please explain to me how these sources meet WP:GNG. Quantpole (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These sources are not tangential mentions but explain the nature of Cuppers and give examples of the sports and winners. There are hundreds of other sources which provide yet more information and so the notability guideline is well satisfied. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One sentence does not significant coverage make. Quantpole (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The OED cites references from over a hundred years ago so the nomination's suggestion that this is a neologism is mistaken. See Oxford "-er" for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment can a hundred year old word really still be a neologism? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — the article is well referenced and the term widely used at Oxford and Cambridge. I have added appropriate categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – this term is both long-established and still in active use: search of Cherwell for "Cuppers" returns 30+ articles by different contributors over the past 18 months. Though Cherwell is only a student newspaper, it is arguably a reliable source for slang in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (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.