Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUBAR


 * 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   no consensus. Two of the delete !voters also support merging as an option but there's no consensus for a target. Therefore a "NC" close makes the most sense at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

FUBAR

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is not encyclopedic per WP:DICDEF. --> Gggh  talk/contribs 09:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; FUBAR is more of a concept than that of the word, and therefore is not covered by WP:DICDEF (see WP:DICDEF). Also number of redirects to this page illustrates another major difference of article (per WP:DICDEF): that "synonyms are ... duplicate articles that should be merged". Ipsign (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a dictionary definition, and it's already covered at Wiktionary. --Michig (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ipsgn. Legit article.  Madman (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The point of WP:DICDEF is just navigational: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.". It therefore not a reason to delete.  Note that this title is used for a book of WW2 slang.  Is this the topic that the reader is expecting?  The existence of the book indicates that the title ought to lead somewhere and figuring out what that is is not a deletion matter. Warden (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * but the point of WP:NOT is that Wikipedia articles should not be mere dictionary entries, which is all this is.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT says explicitly that "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". There's no policy reason to delete here and there are quite reasonable alternatives to deletion, as the book indicates. Warden (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (actually redirect... to one of its previous targets) - I don't think it's any more a "concept" than most other words. There's nothing in this article describing a "concept" beyond the etymology at the moment, which should tell us something for an article that's been around since 2001. Of course during most of that time it sat as a redirect or a disambiguation page to the actual "concept". Perhaps there's a cultural slang of WW2 or something similar article. I would also be open to the idea of merging BOHICA, SNAFU, and TARFU, all to a single article about these related slang words. I'm all for preserving content here but this is just having articles for the sake of having articles. The bulk of the content (that wiktionary doesn't cover) is lists of pop culture refs. I don't see much hope of it growing beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as DICTDEF and move FUBAR (disambiguation) over. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (no objection to merge). This almost looks like a (rather crufty) Wiktionary entry: a definition, an etymology, and a list of sample usages. If there were a concept here, it would be Military slang or perhaps Error. Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article has no encyclopedic content, and is basically a dictionary definition. I don't think that it would be possible to write an an encyclopedic article on this topic, and no one has achieved this in the 6.5 years this article has existed for. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Shadowjams. I do think this article could be made into a proper article on its own, if sources were available and someone were so inclined. And the Disamb page needs to retain the definition, particularly if this is deleted. If it's sat this long, though, there's no need to keep it any longer. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur that the article's style is not very encyclopedic, but it is a sufficiently notable acronym. With some sourcing and rewriting it can stand on its own as a proper article. It should be merged at the very least. -Anagogist (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ipsign. -- Armchair Ace  00:28, 26 February 2012 (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.