Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fully sick


 * 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. Proto :: ►  15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully sick

 * — (View AfD)

An article on an advertising slogan, a deliberate coiining of a neologism, sourced from Encyclopaedia Dramatica (yes you read that right), a Google search and Urban Dictionary. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable.
 * Delete cobber. The article clearly states its a neologism Gwernol 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep changing my opinion in the light of Canley's additional references. The Australian National Dictionary project one is a little thin, as it simply uses it as an example, but it does confer some notability. The reference from The Age is also a little sketchy as the article is about the show not the term, but it does note the term specifically and point to its popularity and importance. Add these to the use in the Thorpe's TV ads and there's enough of a case for me. More would be better though. Gwernol 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable neologism. Jayden54 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Merge as per below It is a major thing in Australia, few people would not have heard it used, and the advert is often parodied. I can understand that it looks like a simple neologism to non-Australians, but it goes much deeper then that.Darkcraft 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism, WP:NOT a dictionary/slang guide, and anything which claims "references" from Encyclopedia Dramatca and Urban Dictionary should be deleted on sight. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. --Haemo 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism by the retardation that is ED. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - for the record, this phrase is not a neologism, and it is very well known in Australia. It's been used in reputable news sources like ABC, news.com.au, and SMH. Also, it existed long before Thorpe's ad - that ED article is a pile of crap. The only reason I'm voting delete is because I don't think you'll find enough academic sources out there to write a full article this phrase. Still, a one-line definition should be added wherever we define Australianisms around here. If we do ever find some sources which outline the phrase in more depth, I'd have no objection to recreating an article. Quack 688 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully keep Amazingly, I did find an academic source:, The Australian National Dictionary project at the Australian National University which defines "fully" as an intensifier, and uses "fully sick" from the SBS website as an example of usage (the phrase is frequently used in the comedy series Pizza). There's a paragraph or two about the phrase in The Age which may be a more reliable source than the current ones. --Canley 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Canley 09:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as annoying as it is, this is slang in frequent use in Australia. Also see comment from Canley above.  Lankiveil 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per the notability guideline for neologisms, which requires that the term itself be the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage, not just that the term be used in numerous places. Using "fully sick" as an example to illustrate the use of "fully" does not qualify as non-trivial coverage.  Zun  aid  © Review me!  12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But "fully sick" isn't just an example. It has its own meaning, just like "top notch" means more than "top" plus "notch". That's why it needs to be properly defined somewhere on Wikipedia. There's a bit of history behind the phrase as well - as I said above, if we find some more sources about that aspect, I'd be perfectly happy to see this article kept as an independent. Quack 688 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete move to one of the Australian English lists of slang. WP:NEO has not been met (listings in a dictionary - especially ones that accept user contributions - aren't sufficient)Garrie 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase is more important and less new than the article currently suggests, but still doesn't deserve it's own article. JPD (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The phrase may be real enough, but shouldn't it be in wiktionary or something? The article is little more than a dictionary definition. Andjam 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - per some above comments as neologism. Or maybe put in Wiktionary.  Insane  phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had speedied it but then the author said he'd improve it. Well I restored it and...it's not better. :) Neologism. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:28, 10 January 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.