Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy bunny


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy bunny



 * Delete - term is non-notable neologism, sources don't meet WP:V. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also note from looking at "What links here" that almost no articles link to this article. It appears to be used almost exclusively for personal attacks by calling a user by this term (with a link to this article) on user talk pages. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced crap. But I do thank whichever editor has provided us with the weirdest dab in history: "This article is about a neopagan term. For the game involving marshmallows, see Chubby bunny." --Aaron 21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN for above. Danny Lilithborne 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim or evidence of notability. Edison 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unconcerned either way, however I note that evidence for notability is very easy to find. Just searching the www.witchvox.com site (the leading pagan/wiccan current affairs/networking site) if find three articles about the pejorative use of this term:, , . There are many more passing references to it on that site, and I'm sure there will be articles on the subject in printed pagan books and journals as well. Some of these articles also describe attempts to reclaim the term as a positive identifier, information which could make for an interesting article, and one that goes beyond mere dictionary definition. This is a very widespread term, instantly recognisable by neopagans in any English-speaking country. Merely resenting the term is not necessarily a reason for deleting the article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per Fuzzypeg. Also, there are fewer links to the article now than there once were, as Ekajati has been going through the 'pedia and deleting them from articles. --Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫♦♫ 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fuzzypeg and Kathryn NicDhàna. If you think that the article doesn't have enough reliable sources, a better remedy is to add them. Doctor Whom 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -999 (Talk) 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article could use serious editing. The complaint is about lack of sources. I added some sources. It needs more. Add them. --Morningstar2651 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't mischaracterize the complaint. The complaint is that the very topic is non-encyclopedic. Try putting a brief entry on Wiktionary, that's where it belongs. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything that meets our content policies to Eclectic Wicca. Jkelly 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Eclectic Wicca and/or Traditional Wicca, where the tem has relevance. Doe snot stand on it's own, nor does it need that many paragraphs to get across the fact that it is a term of disparagement. ob-pagan: I am an Ecelctic Wiccan but no Fluff Bunny! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per 999. 38.100.34.2 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems strange to me, but I know it's real, having met a few people who described themselves this way. There should be enough sources. DGG 05:17, 28 November 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.