Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem(speech)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gotem(speech)
Neologism of local interest. --LeeHunter 00:53, 28 Jan 2005


 * Strong keep This article is about a new trend/slang within pop culture and therefore should keep its spot on wikipedia until it fades from pop culture. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I notice that bakuzjw has already put some of this material on his user page. Good idea. You can pretty much do what you like within very broad limits. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This article has data beyond a definition and is a good example of how WikipediA is on the edge of society. I see absolutely no reason to delete this page... ever. - Singpolyma 16:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when is Wikipedia on the edge of society? It is long-established policy that Wikipedia does not accept articles and supposed facts which cannot be substantiated.  RickK 21:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article does contain some useful information. 00:55, 28 Jan 2005 PhoenixPinion (contribs)''
 * Please note that votes by the author of the article and anonymous voters are not counted. --LeeHunter 01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In my experience, votes by the author of the article (if a registered user) are counted. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. --LeeHunter 02:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Phoenix,s etits are only at the gotem page, at the non-notable high-school page, who is claimed to be the birthplace of gotem, and here, hence he may be excluded under the policy "or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 02:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made many other edits, only I have never registered. Of course, I understand you have no reason to believe me, but until one of my articles came under fire, I had no reason to register. PhoenixPinion


 * Delete If it's still around in a year, then put it on here. --Woohookitty 01:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local neologism that doesn't even clearly explain how it's different than "got 'em", if there's anything other than the spelling--removing punctuation from an expression doesn't seem very notable. Niteowlneils 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "growing in popularity" today will disappear tomorrow. Mikkalai 01:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable --nixie 02:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. The expression "Got 'em" (never spelled "Gotem") as an abbreviation for "Got them" is very old and long predates usage by Florida high school students.  The new usage described for a single local high school in Florida is not notable, probably a fad that will end when they graduate or get bored and move on to the next fad.  If an article about the very common English expression "Got 'em" is needed, then write it from scratch... there's nothing here that could be used.  By the way, some of the "keep" votes above are suspicious and sound like an informally organized campaign to stuff the ballot box. -- Curps 02:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems common sense that an article that is incomplete should be expanded upon, not deleted.--PhoenixPinion


 * Delete - non notable, list it when it becomes popular. This is not a site to popularize stuff. kaal 03:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and delete all of the sockpuppet and anon votes. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this verifiable? (See Verifiability.) Has it been covered in a local newspaper, or picked up by academics of English who watch colloquialisms as their life's work, etc? If not, you won't likely be able to convince Wikipedians it should be in the encyclopedia. (See What Wikipedia is not.) A more appropriate place for this would be Urban Dictionary. Samaritan 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The way to counter lots of votes by new users is to vote against them, not to call them names. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. sjorford// 09:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this word deserves a place in a wikimedia project it should be on Wiktionary without 'speech' in parentheses in the title. Please review policy before creating an article. Mgm|(talk) 09:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Er... the article says it: slang among Florida...high school students. Kind of very extremely limited. (Vanity we love you!) Gtabary 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn,vanity... Lectonar 14:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of real use outside a very narrow circle. When it appears in printed dictionaries, even dictionaries of slang or regional English, or someone can cite an article about it in a newspaper of record like The New York Times, we can have an article about it. "everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be" is really the key: Wikipedia is not for the promotion of new trends, however, worthy. It is an encyclopedia that presents already-well-established existing facts that are already of some degree of importance. I am not convinced that the supporters are sockpuppets, and I'm sorry they are having a rough introduction to Wikipedia.. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Localised neologism. Wikipedia isn't for things that might grow, it is for things that have. Someone creating an article for their baby because, hey, they might win a Nobel Prize would see it deleted pretty quickly, and the same for neologisms. Average Earthman 17:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete.  GRider\talk 18:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, slangdef. --fvw *  23:32, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * DeleteSc147 02:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unconfirmable local slang. Jeltz talk  13:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Martg76 17:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologistic vanity. --Angr 22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another neologism. IF this word becomes popular, it could deserve an entry. TomTheHand 22:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. definition -Willmcw 23:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete the fierce defense only makes it seem more like a vanity page. LizardWizard 04:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. --32147 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, buh? Last I checked I had a few edits. LizardWizard 09:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's NOT LizardWizard's only edit, as far as I can tell. He's been here since late last year. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  15:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Votes attached to personal attacks
Okay, I'm probably doing something controversial here, but I'm making a point about the unprofessional and harmful comments that have been left along with votes, by setting apart these votes like the "suspect votes" were set apart. I'm not denying that these votes count. I voted delete, by the way. RSpeer 20:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's done is done, but in the future please do not try to sort out the suspect or controversial votes.  It makes it almost impossible to sort these discussions out at the end of the discussion period.  Too much context is lost when the comments and/or replies are moved.  Long threads like this are hard enough even when you do have a clear context and an edit history that matches the contributions.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)  (no vote)
 * Comment: I fully endorse RSpeers move of identifying unprofessional delete votes on VfD. These acts of immaturity towards potential newcomers does nothing to help Wikipedia's already degrading image.  I voted delete as well, by the way.  GRider\talk 20:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So complain on their talk pages. Messing with the order of comments and votes to express your discontent with their content isn't appropriate. --fvw *  20:47, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


 * Another strong delete. To the sockpuppets:  Give it up.  Or "gotem."  Either one. - Lucky 6.9 20:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since when is a quip and/or a mild swipe at a sockpuppet considered to be a personal attack?  I am a firm believer in not biting newbies and I did not mean this to be any sort of attack. - Lucky 6.9 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Newbies don't know what a sockpuppet is or why you're calling them that. Other people have managed to introduce suspicions of sockpuppetry while explaining what the term means and giving their evidence. RSpeer 05:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. I stand corrected.  No change of vote, but I withdraw the quip.  Thanks, Speer. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just to spite the sockpuppets if for no other reason (and there are plenty). -R. fiend 03:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable/neologism/vanity, take your pick. I'm sure the attempts to ballot-stuff will be disregarded. Rje 03:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ballot stuffing. I can not believe that people are making the claim that ballot stuffing is going on when you have no proof. Perhaps we should steer clear of making baseless claims about each other, and instead debate the real issue which is wither or not this is a valid article for Wikipedia, which i think it is. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of evidence. All of the new "Users" who have shown up all of a sudden to vote on this page as their first, one of their first, or their only edits is evidence enough.  RickK 21:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, local neologism - not yet notable enough, possible vanity. Sockpuppets/first time edit voters only add weight to the delete vote. Megan1967 03:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism; ballot-stuffing appears to suggest that this is also a vanity article. -- Karada 01:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suspect votes

 * "keep it, i use it everyday, it is a cultural thing. everythign starts small, let this grow. itll stop growing on its own if its not meant to be. dont vote against this"
 * unsigned vote by 4.235.196.40 (contribs)
 * Strong keep This article shows the freedom of speech in the US, and some kids just want to exercise their first ammendment rights. It shows a longing for difference, and some creativity. --Bobtheazn 02:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)User:bobtheazn
 * Strong disregard this vote by policy "...or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.". Mikkalai 03:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering the wealth of information on Wikipedia dealing with pop culture, there is no reason that another article regarding a new colloquialism should be deleted.
 * unsigned vote by Karmapoliceman (contribs)
 * This user's only edit. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article does not represent absolutely no truth about anything. And it is contrary to the inverse of what wikipedia is not trying to accomplish. Thus it shouldn't not be undeleted. --198.190.223.15
 * Keep Article shows origins of speech patterns in a local environment, a growing interest in some fields.
 * unsigned vote by 128.227.189.207 (contribs)
 * Keep Great article. Definitely keep it, I think it's really valuable. I can now appropriately use the word in Florida schools, if ever necessary. --32147 01:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)01:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Three current edits by this user; one to this page, one to the article, and one to User page. --Goobergunch|? 01:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I'm a seventeen year old highschool girl in Florida and this term is thrown around all of the time, and quite frankly, I would be severely disappointed if a site so proud in its depth of information were to discredit a new word such as 'gotem'. portia
 * User's only edit. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * And on the flipside, Keep, just to spite the sockpuppets who want to delete the article simply because they are unfamiliar with the term or see it as insignificant from their point-of-view. --32147 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)-[[User:32147|32147]
 * I would like to ask that this vote not be counted because the only motivation is out of spite for &#8220;sockpuppets&#8221; and not for the content of the entry. I again ask that we try and steer away from baseless and childish attacks and focus on the real issue at hand bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I second bakuzjw's motion not to count 32147's vote. Clearly made in bad faith. -R. fiend 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, a small mistake has been made R.fiend. My comment about not counting the vote was in fact directed to your vote and not 32147"s vote. Sorry for the misunderstanding. bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32147's only edits are to the article, the school it supposedly comes from, and this page. RickK 06:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * And note that he voted keep twice. If it's gonna count it'll have to be just once. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP You are my best friend. and you are my hero. and i love you :) oh yea whoever deletes this i will be very mad at you. The word 'gotem' is a very smart word.prettypinkpony
 * Please just vote, don't feed the trollerkinder. See you in 5 days. Mikkalai 03:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My thoughts excalty, i couldnt agree more. 24.250.217.87 03:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we all be friends please? Oh and could someone wikify the word "sockpuppets" and then make an article on it because I'm confused. Is this a puppet that is made out of a sock? If so, what does it have to do with Gotem(speech)? I am disturbed by the number of "veteran" users here who are referring to unrelated things such as sockpuppets to justify the deletion of this article. --32147 03:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet --Goobergunch|? 03:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't call new users who aren't sockpuppets "sockpuppets". It's elitist and a really crappy welcome to Wikipedia. If you really think they are the same person as another account (which is what "sockpuppet" means), show some evidence. RSpeer 07:09, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think that most of the votes on this are sockpuppets, but that they know each other in real life.  However, 32147 wanted to know what a sockpuppet was and I was happy to oblige. --Goobergunch|? 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment If I were the acting sysop on this page, I would probably count these as about three "keep" votes. Admittedly there's no way to be sure and a clever person could simulate different personalities and writing styles. I see enough differences in style between different voters to there's more than one voter. I see enough similarities in style to think there are fewer than nine. taking the geometrical mean of one and nine, I get three... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Only sockpuppets take geometric means.
 * Comment checking this page i can see that some people suspect that "sock puppets" have been used. I give you my word, that to my knowledge, no sock puppets have been used. Now granted some of the "keep" votes are by new users, which apparently aren&#8217;t going to count (however i think they should). So a question for an admin, how is it determined what votes are used and what votes are thrown out. Does a person need to have a certain number of edits, be a member for a certain amount of time, ect.. I am in no way trying to cause trouble, I am just curios as to what the protocol is. (And besides even if the votes that have been thrown out were counted the article would still be deleted, sadly I might add). One last thing would it be a problem for me to have the gotem article on my homepage? bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment (I already said this on bakuzjw's Talk page but I just want to emphasize it). No, there would be no problem at all for you to put this article on your User page. It would be a good idea. This material falls well within the very, very loose bounds we set for appropriate use of user pages. And by the way Google does index user pages. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you yourself are a sockpuppet but nearly all of the those anonymous keeps came in within a few minutes of the page being VFD'd which is a strong indication that a little clique had been 'instant messaged' to fluff up the vote. Why else did a bunch of anonymous voters show up so quickly? It never happens unless some form of sockpuppetry is involved. I don't think they were sockpuppets in the strict sense of the word, but there was obviously a group of people trying to make their little catch-phrase into something it isn't. The delete votes, most of which came from regular contributors, straggled in as they normally do over the next hours and days. --207.253.111.119 15:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * (This comment isn't just directed at 207.253.111.119 -- though it's fascinating that the strongest elitism is coming from an anonymous IP -- but at everyone in this discussion who is attacking the new users who tried to contribute to Wikipedia.)
 * They aren't sockpuppets in any sense of the word. It may be annoying when a new user recruits other new users to back them up on VfD, but there's no rule against it, and there shouldn't be, because all users are equal.
 * Editors who have made hundreds of edits are usually dismayed to find that some high school student recruited over IM can cast a vote that counts as much as theirs. They tend to react by intimidating the users, either calling them names or telling them that their votes don't count (which is untrue). You've done this too, now.
 * So is it that upsetting that someone might vote against you? Someone who (gasp) isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works? You should sit back and relax, knowing that other experienced editors will come along and cast their own votes, and the right thing will happen to the article.
 * Sure, this article doesn't have much worth, but the users supporting it might once they get more Wikipedia experience. Wouldn't it be great if more high schoolers discovered Wikipedia and found out what a wonderful thing it is? Instead, though, they tend to discover Wikipedia and immediately have to withstand a barrage of personal attacks on VfD. Get off your high horse and go edit some articles.
 * RSpeer 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that "anonymous" comment was mine -- I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made it. I must admit I am baffled by the suggestion of 'elitism'. It is a well-established policy to distinguish between votes made by contributors and votes by people who are making their first appearance to try and sway a vote in favor of some group. --LeeHunter 23:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more with Rspeer, the whole point of wikipedia is to make loads of knowledge available to the masses for free. And the only way that a lot of knowledge can be compiled is if a lot of people compile it. When veteran users come out and attack an article so furiously is not saying much about the wikipedia community. I enjoy Wikipedia, I like creating new articles and editing old ones, and I like to just sit and read wikipedia. But the problem is wikipedia will die out if veteran users attack new users in the way that happened many times on this vfd page (lets face it veteran users, which i am not one of, as you age, get married, get a job, have kids, wikipedia will fall to the bottom of your todo list). I guess what I am trying to say is that just be friendly to the new users, help them with various wikipedia protocol (which i am still learning and i have been part of wikipedia for a good 2-3 months now). And instead of declaring their vote invalid (because they only have one edit, or are new to wikipedia) and mocking their attempt at trying to save a wikipedia article they like, tell them why it isn&#8217;t a valid wikipedia article (which wasn&#8217;t done until days after the initial votes were posted), and i would think that the process would go smother. I know this wikipedia article will be taken down, but that is no longer the point, the point is (and some users ego's still wont let them see this) that I think wikipedia needs to take a look at who they treat new users, becuase remember in the future it will be us (i am only 17, and most of my friends-which made up a large majority of the keep votes- are the same age)who will be keeping wikipedia alive, so come on treat as with a little respect.bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the comments again! There are comments on the article itself - most of which are utterly bland and neutral, saying that it doesn't belong. And then there are comments about the voting, some of which merely express irritation that a bunch of people came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of saving this one little catch phrase which wouldn't belong in WP anyway. That's not elitism. It's not a ferocious attack. Anyone is welcome as a contributor but if a contributor doesn't understand what WP is all about, someone else will point that out to them. Hopefully this will be done diplomatically, but sometimes not. I actually think people have been remarkably restrained and good-humored about this and a number of people have taken pains to explain how things work. --LeeHunter 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * CommentReading through some of the delete votes i was amazed at the amount of elitism that was contained in there reasons for deletion. While maybe I am just reading the votes wrong, I still find it somewhat shocking that this is how some of the veteran users treat new users. It seems to me that there is a wikiclick and if you are not part of the "click" then your going to be in trouble. I just think that people should maybe tone down their responses and try and welcome new members instead of scaring them off by bashing them. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lots of votes here are misunderstood. Veteran users aren't all a bunch of elitists. Most of them are just trying to be effective and quick about the deletion process. People who feel strongly about the subject may feel hurt about its deletion, but it's not a personal attack. They're trying to keep the wiki clean and it can be really frustrating to see such stuff coming by. I recommend all new users to read the policy on what wikipedia isn't. Having it on your userpage wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. Mgm|(talk) 09:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. For instance, when I see an article posted to VfD on Special:Recentchanges, I'll usually check the article, do a Google check, and then post a fairly quick keep/delete comment.  I posted the notes about number of user edits because it's common practice on VfD votes to do so.  However, I think we (including myself) often forget to take into account that new users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies.  I'll note to be a bit less brusque in the future. --Goobergunch|? 20:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The word that you are hunting for is "clique", the phraseology is a shorthand that you should familiarize yourself with in order to understand these discussions, and the vote tallying process is explained in the deletion process guidelines for administrators. Uncle G 16:36, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like they gotem. PhoenixPinion 23:56, 28 Jan 2005
 * What you guys don't seem to realize is, your usage of "gotem" is only used locally by yourselves, in your school or your town. If it ever makes it to widespread nationwide usage, then maybe it would be encyclopedic enough to have an article on it. But right now, it's just a local fad that you guys are practising.  So it doesn't belong here.  And you shouldn't try to use Wikipedia as a platform to try to promote it... that's not what Wikipedia is for. -- Curps 09:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a widely-used expression, unless there was some kind of sociohistorical notablity about the word, at best it would belong in Wiktionary. RickK 21:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with RickK. --Idont Havaname 01:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Jayjg (talk)  03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Edeans 08:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism (if you could count a different spelling as a neologism) JimmyShelter 12:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a neologism limited to a particular geographical area, age group, and period of time.  It's just simply not encyclopedic.  It seems to have been proposed in good faith, but it also seems to have been proposed (and defended) in non-knowledge of what Wikipedia is not -- which is one of the reasons administrators do have discretion when they count votes from anons or users whose edit count is below "voting age", since such contributors may be well-intended but may simply not understand what Wikipedia's aims are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This word is unique enough to warrant its own article. Do not the words "night" and "knight" have differing denotations while being close in spelling? While it is true that the origin of "gotem" is confined to a specific region, its use has already spread amongst North Central Floridian students, and is on the verge of being taken to regions across the nation, such as the Palo Alto/Stanford area in California. While the word's importance may not be immediately obvious, neither was the importance of the word crunk, which started as an obscure slang but came to have a major effect on nearly all segments of American culture and society. It would be a travesty to have this article deleted and lose forever knowledge of its specific origin due to a handful of doubting Wikipedia users. It is highly likely that the use of this word will increase exponentially within the next two decades, if not sooner. This is due in part to the far reaching influence of North Central Floridian students (see University of Florida) and many others associated with the region. What users such as Curps do not realize is that this is a rare opportunity to capture the birth of a phrase that will have a far greater impact on the English language than is currently realized. CharlieO 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote is user's first edit. --fvw *  02:39, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Above post is an astonishing observation. Perhaps you should check IPs before getting excited. 128.227.73.39 02:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Immediately above post is mine (was not logged in). CharlieO 03:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don&#8217;t think it matters fvw, if that is the users first post or 1000 post. What matters is the point that he made, which I think is rather valid. So I think that this vote should in fact be counted because the point is valid and one that should be taken into consideration.bakuzjw (aka 578) 03:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don&#8217;t think it matters &mdash; You should, because it does. Please famliarize yourself with what is written at the top of WP:VFD. the point is valid &mdash; No, it isn't. If "knowledge" is "lost" by an article being deleted from Wikipedia, then said knowledge was, by definition, original research, which is not permitted in the first place. Moreover, it's pretty damning evidence of the non-notability of the word if the only place that it is known about is a Wikipedia article submitted by a handful of schoolchildren. Uncle G 17:36, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * I guess we are just going to disagree on this issue then Uncle G, I can't help it if you have a closed mind and don’t like it when "a handful of schoolchildren" stand up for something they like. If you delete this page or not really makes no difference to me because it will live on forever on my user homepage, and perhaps in a couple of months i will repost it and see how the votes fall that time. bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd better make sure you have a lot more evidence to present of it being notable at that time, because if you recreate an article that was deleted by a VfD consensus, it qualifies for a speedy delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what i meant, i wouldn’t just repost an article for kicks, and besides, right now i am very well versed in all of the rules regarding wikipeida VfD because i have read over them at least twice (because various people have referred to them in there comments). bakuzjw (aka 578) 21:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What users such as CharlieO do not seem to realize is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has no interest in "capturing the birth" of anything. At least not in form of an encyclopedia article in the main namespace. That is simply not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. There are other vehicles for recording such things. For example:


 * Put it on a web page in any reasonable location and let archive.org capture it. Many ISPs give you a personal web page. Use it. Unless you deliberately exclude it from indexing, archive.org will probably pick it up within about a year. They've picked up my utterly non-notable personal web page twenty times since 1999.
 * Or post something about it any Usenet newsgroup, via Google Groups--I suggest alt.usage.english--and let Google archive your post.
 * Submit it to jnanabase, which is a general knowledge base
 * Or, for that matter, CharlieO, you can put it on your Wikipedia user page, which you have not yet created. Wikipedia user pages are indexed by Google, by the way.


 * Everybody and their brother wants to submit Wikipedia articles about their band, perpetual motion machine, neologism, or philosophical theory, and the argument is always "This may not be notable now, but it will be real soon." Fine. Then we don't need an article about it now. When it becomes notable, submit the article, together with verifiable references to the slang directionary that includes it or the New York Times article that mentions it and we'll be pleased to accept it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a factual dispute in the claims by CharlieO. I assure you the term is not being used in the Palo Alto/Stanford area. GoCardinal 21:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.