Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodpunt


 * 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Foodpunt
WP:NFT. Weregerbil 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as nonsense --IslaySolomon 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with what constitutes patent nonsense, and please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article describes an action made up by some university students in the summer of 2006. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  The article cites no sources and is clearly original research.  Delete. Uncle G 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah, woah, keep your hair on Uncle G. I'd hardly call erroniously suggesting the use of a speedy delete "abuse". I wasn't actually adding a speedy tag. Since this doesn't meet the definition of nonsense then delete as "made up in school one day". I don't appreciate being talked down to like that. --IslaySolomon 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No-one "talked down". I quite politely asked you to familiarize yourself with what patent nonsene actually is, and not to abuse the speedy deletion criteria as you were doing.  That you didn't add a tag to the article didn't mean that you weren't abusing the speedy deletion criteria.  You wrote "Speedy Delete" above.  Please familiarize yourself with the Guide to deletion, which tells you what you implied when you wrote that. Uncle G 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, with appropriate speed, WP:NOR and WP:NFT. Tonywalton | Talk 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, Uncle G this is a DISCUSSION page. I made my opinion known. Just because you disagree with me does not give you the right to accuse me of "abuse". As it happens I do believe that this article could constitute "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any use of it whatsoever" and therefore could conceivably be considered patent nonsense. That is my opinion and interpretation of the "patent nonsense" policy. If you disagree with that then feel free to say why but do not accuse me of wilfull ignorance or abuse.--IslaySolomon 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Extending the patent nonsense criterion to cover things that are simply nonsense, not patent nonsense, is abuse of the criterion, plain and simple, as discussed in many places, including Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense. Thinking that this article is "completely and irredeemably confused" is either based upon not actually reading the article at all (It's not confused at all, let alone irredemably so.) or based upon the desire to make the speedy deletion peg fit into the hole, however hard one has to hammer it in order to do so.  That is abuse of the speedy deletion criteria, whether you wish it so or not.  Speedy deletion is deliberately restrictive, and the purpose of the patent nonsense is to cover those articles that are utterly and permanently incomprehensible, not to cover articles that are, as this one is, readily comprehensible. Uncle G 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this "abuse"? This is suppose to be a discussion. If I turn up and say "I think this constitutes patent nonsense" all you have to do is say "I disagree because..." that's how this thing works. There are debates here continuously as to whether articles meet various criteria for inclusion or deletion. What gives you the right to arbitrarily brand me "wrong"? --IslaySolomon 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've explained above exactly how it is abuse. Please read it again. Uncle G 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are approaching this situation in an extraordinarily rude, patronising and mean spirited way. I have made my opinion on this article heard and I stand firmly by it. How dare you lecture me as if i were a child. You are not omniscient and have no right whatsoever to simply dismiss my opinions out of hand. I did not nominate this article for deletion I simply added my opinion on the matter in good faith and did not expect a patronising scolding in return. Just because we disagree over the our interpretation of WP policy does not give you the right to accuse me of abuse. --IslaySolomon 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please address arguments, not people. Please also read abuse.  Applying the patent nonsense criterion for the speedy deletion of something which is clearly not patent nonsense is abuse of that criterion.  Uncle G 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have conceded right from the start that this is not a case of patent nonsense and changed my vote accordingly. Would it have killed you to have simply written "I disagree with Islay Solomon, this is not a case of patent nonsense" rather than resorting to a patronising lecture? If I had actually added a db-nonsense tag to the article then of course I would be abusing the patent nonsense criteria. But that is not what I did. I simply stated, in a debate initiated by "Weregerbil", that I thought a speedy nonsense delete was appropriate. As it happens I was wrong. Instead of conducting yourself in a civil manner you have deluged me with vile and sarcastic insinuations of stupidity and ignorance that I find extremely offensive. As far as I am concerned this matter is closed and I will not respond to further messages.--IslaySolomon 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I made no mention whatsoever of stupidity, as can be plainly seen above. You are taking offence at something that does not exist in what is actually written in front of you.  Indeed, I have made no comment about you at all.  Simply writing that it is not patent nonsense would not have encouraged you to stop abusing the criterion.  Hence, I politely asked you to stop abusing it.  That you found a polite request to stop abusing the patent nonsense criterion, followed by answers to your questions as to how you were abusing the criterion, to be offensive, is quite bizarre.  I simply stated that I thought a speedy nonsense delete was appropriate.  &mdash;  which is exactly how you abused the patent nonsense criterion.  There is no "nonsense" speedy deletion criterion, only patent nonsense.  Extending it to cover nonsense is abusing the criterion.  Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Good grief. It may not reach one editor's definition of nonsense, but it sure looks like nonsense to me. And I did not say patent nonsense. Throwing around allegations of abuse on a judgement call is also abuse of privledge. --DarkAudit 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling something that is an abuse an abuse is no more than clear writing. No privilege is involved.  And please read the above discussion to see what is actually being discussed.  It was not whether the article is nonsense. Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of course this is nonsense; Uncle G, you're seriously insisting on the crucial distinction between word sald (patent nonsense) and stuff made up in school one day?  Yes, they're distinguishable, but so what?  Neither belong in an encyclopedia, which is the real point of this discussion.  Where the distinction matters, i.e., the tag used for deletion--well, Islay never used it.  Uncle G, you owe Islay an apology. (and yes, I'm addressing arguments, not people, as your comments are hostile and ultimately unsupportable.  Reimelt 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the distinction is between nonsense and patent nonsense. On the contrary: IslaySolomon did recommend speedy deletion.  Xe wrote "Speedy delete".  Please read familiarize yourself with Guide to deletion to see what that means.  My comments were entirely polite.  Uncle G 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I said he never used the tag. Please familiarize yourself with the previous posting. (you see?  It's really rather brusque to insist on the minutiae.)  And yes, Uncle G, you were right in detail and Islay was wrong.  No one is sayng otherwise.  I'll stop posting here as this has gotten way out of hand and the contributors here are way too valuable (from what I can see) to belabor this. For my part, I just didn't want any hurt feelings over an entry that should be deleted. Reimelt 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am intrigued by your argument over a subjective term such as "nonsense." For instance, some of us would feel that the word nonsense may apply to a group of people who go on the internet to search for entries in a free online encyclopedia, even as this entry does not conern them in the least and can simply be ignored.  Surely you all have better things to do with your time than decide what students, who are in some cases over 3,000 miles away, should be allowed to read online and laugh at.  As far as the contention that this entry is "patent nonsense," this entry is decidedly coherent and while some "reasonable" people will undoubtedly find this entry useless, that certainly does not apply to the population as a whole.  Although I myself am not a student at UW-Madison, I do have several friends there who have heard of and taken part in "foodpunting," in addition to people at my own school who I have seen doing it.  If students at one of the most prestigious universities in America find this term relevant, why should it be taken down to satisfy someone who is so completely "sensible" that they have nothing better to do than scour the internet for terms that are objectionable to them.--Borat416
 * If ignoring the entry is the "sensical" (sensible?)thing to do, why are you so verbose? I for one couldn't care less what UW-Madison students (or anyone else) finds amusing; I do care what goes into Wikipedia.  Moreover, "simply ignoring" it does not do anything for the finite storage capacity of wWikipedia's servers.  Most important, if you have nothing to say re the article itself, don't post here.  Also, please sign your comments.  Reimelt 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reimelt, until wikipedia assigns you to some sort of policy-making position and adds you to the payroll, I am going under the assumption that they do not need you to monitor the storage capacity of their servers. Until then, you and everyone else has to understand that although you may not disagree with the content/relevance of every article on wikipedia, that does not mean that the article breaks some kind of rule.  The article does not reflect a promotional intent, as I doubt "foodpunters" are trying to profit off of this activity.  The author's argument that "foodpunting" is similar to "drunk dialing"(also a wikipedia entry) in that both are common activities performed by intoxicated persons is a valid one.  As for your supposed right to determine what goes into a FREE online encyclopedia, if you are that controlling then I suggest you stop commenting on random articles, get a job, purchase your own encyclopedia, and then rip out the pages that you don't agree with.--Borat416
 * What on earth does wikipedia being free have to do with anything? "On the payroll" ?  The whole point of Wikipedia is to have collaboration by volunteers.  Moreover, where does anyone accuse the article's authors of trying to profit from it.  Finally,"Drunk dialing" is verifiably notable, foodpunting is not.  That's the the rule the article breaks: non-notability. As to the "get a job" sneer--comment on the arguments, not the people.  In that vein, you do realize that this is the page where editors vote on articles for deletion, right?   What's '"controlling" about participating in the collaborative process?  I was adding my vote on the page for voting and then you insult me as controlling?  What's that about?.  On that note, I think I'll stop feeding the trolls for a while.  Reimelt 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right, I consider somebody who needs to put their two cents in on something that has little to no effect on them is indeed controlling. Get a life.--Borat416
 * Delete Just as anybody may edit, anybody may contribute to the consensus as to whether things should be kept. The article breaks several rules, policies and guidelines, such as WP:V (and WP:RS), WP:NFT, WP:NEO, etc. Wikipedia does not pay people to make these decisions - we contribute to these discussions because we want to keep it as reliable and encyclopaedic as we can. This is not a good article, plain and simple, and does not deserve to continue to be a waste of space. SM247 My Talk  00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if you did have a consensus(which you do not, by the way), should every decision in the world be made by a bunch of internet weirdos with nothing better to do with their time? I'm sure that if you put your mind to it, you can help this planet in some greater way than getting "foodpunt" removed from wikipedia.--Borat416
 * Comment a) The consensus is clearly for deletion and b) this is hardly tantamount to the making of all decisions in the world, it is being made by people who have a vested interest in Wikipedia and know how policy works. I and others participating are not Internet wierdos (or we are and are proud of it) and I don't know why this is relevant to the discussion of this page's worth. SM247 My Talk  01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, Neologism--Nick Y. 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When I read this article, I immediately thought of it as something like a drunk dial too. My friends and I have done this at my school too. We didnt call it this, but we will from now on. I've definitely foodpunted a fair share in my day. Let it stay.--Doubledare 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)DoubleDare
 * Delete - silly made up thing. Artw 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This should NOT be deleted...as a recent college graduate, I participated in many foodpunts. It became a part of our vernacular. All slang words have to originate from somewhere and this one is no different. It would be a travesty to delete this word from wikipedia.
 * If it were really a widely-used neologism, try wikidictionary. But, of course, it is not a part of the vernacular of wikipedia users (or any other large group--including students) when it gets Zero hits on Google. None Nada.  Reimelt 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, have any of the "haters" on this board even tried a "foodpunt," because it seems as if everyone who has tried punting food has liked it. After all, you can't spell foodpunt without F-U-N. ArtVandelay7 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Art Vandalay...to all the haters...next time you see some undesirable food in your fridge try to punt it out the back door...make sure you yell "foodpunt" and that you have a witness...then write about it on your blog so it gets some google hits and then you'll feel better about the foodpunt being on wikipedia. Then remember before Star Wars came out and there was no such thing as a light saver. Neologisms are okay...they even describe real things like computer nerds. Foodpunters don't hate computer nerds so computer nerds shouldn't hate foodpunters.
 * Comment Blogs are not a reliable source, so we would not feel better. I don't know why you assume we hate foodpunters - what we actually hate is unverified and non-notable vanity articles. Feel free to waste all the food you want, just don't advertise your phenomenon unless it actually merits a page. It's quite clear that for now it does not. SM247 My Talk  21:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Patent nonsense it is not (although it's close enough to it), but it's complete bollocks. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We are writing this stuff on a website completely devoted to things that you could not find in a regular encyclopedia...words and phenomenons associated with vernacular, including neologisms and slang are a part of that. There is no reason to be on such a high horse about what does and doesn't belong in a bootleg encyclopedia. Some of the best stuff in here could only be found here. That's what makes it great...VIVA LA FOODPUNT!!!


 * 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.