Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuddle


 * 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuddle

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim of notability or sources offered in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't use the word in this sense. Contested prod. Contesting editor has added a reference to a Derbyshire dictionary -- this word may be more appropriate in a list of Derbyshire terms. Fabrictramp 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds like a localism to me, and not at all what my North American (NJ) English dialect expects: . Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tagged this as patent nonsense.  It was denied.  I still think it's patent nonsense. --UsaSatsui 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It really doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. --Fabrictramp 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it does. That doesn't mean I'm right.  :) --UsaSatsui 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not a cromulent word. Rob T Firefly 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if this term is real, it doesn't deserve an article. No assertion of notability. Cogswobble talk 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently not related to Fuddle duddle, so no need for a merge or redirect.  Possibly more appropriate to Wiktionary. Accounting4Taste 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiktionary would send it right back with a post-it attached: "You think this belongs in a dictionary?" =)  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has no place in an encyclopedia, just like Tetris effect.   Bur nt sau ce  22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of other 'localisms' in Wikipedia, like Chav, Ned and even "Yo". There is also an article on thanks giving which is a localism to north america and not relevant in the rest of the world, how is this any different??. User:Bmoyni 09:30, 3 October 2007 (BST)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Rob T Firefly 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main argument for deletion here is that its a 'localism', I am mearly pointing out that this is not an argument for deletion. User:Bmoyni 15:47, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
 * Thanksgiving is a major American holiday. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, then I would have said "keep". Cogswobble talk 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So it can only get into Wikipedia if it is "major"? I thought the idea of an Encyclopedia was that it gives people information on items that are not widely known!! User:Bmoyni 15:44, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
 * Bmoyni compared "Fuddle" to "Thanksgiving". I simply pointed out that this comparison isn't even remotely accurate. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, I would have said "keep". If "Fuddle" was an Oscar winning movie, I would have said "keep". In other words, if there appeared to be a valid argument for keeping it, I would have said "keep". Cogswobble talk 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument is it's a localism that does not assert it's notability. If it were a localism which spread into wide-use, it would no longer be a localism, but a neologism or some other -logism, which would still need to be notable. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that fuddle is used in the manner presented, then I'll strike my delete. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the reference. User:Bmoyni 16:16, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
 * I have, and what I saw was a list of non-notable local slang. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely the definition of slang is that its non-notable, otherwise it wouldn't be slang! The reference proves that it is used in the context that the page suggests. User:Bmoyni 16:21, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
 * Many slang words have taken on notability. warez d'oh are two that strike me. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. User:Bmoyni 11:53, 5 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
 * I'm unsure of your rebuttal. You're raising the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS flag without context. Does that mean you argue for the existence of this article because other stuff exists, or that your rebuttal is focused on my two examples above? The two examples I cited are well-sourced outside of WP, but so far, a single source has been brought forth for this nominated article. For what it's worth, undue weight appears to address the fact that an extremely limited source of information has been brought to verify the nominated article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the argument wasn't "Other stuff exists, so this should exist too". It was "This is not necessarily non-notable because has this quality, because other things with this quality are notable".  There's a difference. --UsaSatsui 20:17, 5 October 2007 (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.