Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontpage turd

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Frontpage turd
Non-notable: Google returns zero hits for this phrase. Loganberry (Talk) 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is a commonly used term in fora; if you can think of a better name for the article, please feel free to rename it, but I object to a perfectly legitimate article being deleted because it doesn't return on google define. Neither, you may note, does Tomie, and that article hasn't been requested for deletion. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia of everything, and even if Google hasn't heard of a frontpage turd, that doesn't mean actual people haven't.

Goodgerster 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I take it that's a Keep vote, or at least not a Delete? It'd be useful if you provided some evidence that it was "a commonly used term in fora", though, since I didn't only use Google Define, either: there are no hits returned either on the main Google search or (relevant to your argument) on Google Groups . Putting a space in it (ie "Front page turd") produces precisely one hit.  I can't see how it's anything but non-notable. Loganberry (Talk) 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a Keep vote. I haven't time nor patience to trawl through dozens of forums and development websites looking for this phrase.. It should be enough proof of the concept's existence that I can define 'frontpage turd' in this much detail. Google is not the whole Internet. Goodgerster 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some evidence for the common existence of a phrase which is almost completely unknown to Google, seeing as no sources are cited in the article itself. You're quite right to say that Google is not the whole Internet, but as a very important search engine neither is its silence irrelevant, and Google hits are often used here as a rule of thumb for notablity or otherwise. If the consensus here is Keep then the article will stay and of course I'll accept that entirely. The fact I've nominated the article certainly doesn't mean I think you're making the whole thing up, since I don't: simply that I'm unconvinced it's notable enough for Wikipedia. (That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.) Anyway, if you wish the last word you can have it: I'm going to shut up now and let others decide. Loganberry (Talk) 23:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Goodgerster an authoritative and plausible writing style is no substitute for verifiability. If we can't verify it and you do not have "time nor patience" to help us, you should not be surprised if we delete the article. I do have the time and patience to do some quick due-diligence reality checking. You ought to have the time and patience to cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism. No evidence provided of significant real use. It is the responsibility of the contributor to provide this evidence if it isn't patently obvious. One other data point: a Google search for "frontpage" limited to webpagesthatsuck, Vince Flander's excellent website on the topic, produces only two hits on frontpage. Flanders is hardly sympathetic to FrontPage, calls it "AffrontPage," and says "Microsoft doesn't use FrontPage to create pages on Microsoft.com -- even the pages discussing FrontPage. If Microsoft doesn't use it, why should you?" The title of his website shows that he is not averse to using coarse language. But there is no reference to such a thing as a "Frontpage turd." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * delete Never heard it used, no evidence that anyone uses it. seglea 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to lack a documented history. Andre ( talk ) 23:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism and POV rant. --Icelight 23:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unstable neologism.  - Thatdog 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If someone can provide a reference - i.e. a print article or notable blog reference, then that could switch to a weak keep.
 * Keep If this term is not notable, it should be! although I've never heard the term, it describes a genunine phenomenon and is precisely explained. In other words, web sites built with FrontPage tend to share the undesirable characterists the author describes. From a web design perspective, it's a useful point of reference, a kind of class of bad web sites. Ankles 09:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new phrases, neologisms, or concepts, no matter how worthy they may be. That's the meaning of the prohibition of original research. We should not have an article on Vince Flanders' phrase "AfFront Page," either. We have articles on things that are already established concepts, not things that ought to be established concepts. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sterotypical neologism. I use Frontpage, and I don't think you'll find any spelling or grammatical mistakes here.--MilesProwler 01:11, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.