Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo


 * 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. DS 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo
This article is postulating that the term "Joey Shabadoo" is somehow a pop culture term. The problem is that this term is not demonstrated to be notable by any reliable sources. Sources provided for this claim include anonymous comments in a news article and "Urban Dictionary" definitions. The simple fact that an individual or individuals use this term as a username in no way demonstrates any sort of notability. I can't find any verifiable proof that this term is used in any way that demonstrates notability. The article should be deleted. Isotope23 talk 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. "References" do not support the assertions contained in the article. Unverifiable. WP:NN in any case. --Evb-wiki 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another attempt to use Wikipedia to support a new neologism. JuJube 15:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- I am the creator of the article, and I did not get a notice this page was being nominated for deletion, so it is a bad faith nom/submarine nom firstly. Secondly, this term is widely used and recognised, producing an array of ghits.  the page needs work, but is largely notable.  This nomination is totally premature, rather time should be spent upgrading it.JJJ999 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, try and assume a little good faith there JJJ999. Informing the article creator is not a necessity when submitting an AFD.  Normally I try to do so as a courtesy, this time I got sidetracked with something else before I sent you a message.  Second, Google hits are meaningless from the standpoint of the notability criteria because they don't prove anything; that is why they are not part of the criteria.  Finally, with all due respect, I'd rather spend my time enhancing and upgrading articles where I see potential for the core subject matter being notable and verifiable.  At this point, the Joey Shabadoo article does not meet that criteria.  If you can find evidence of notability from reliable sources please do, but I took some time to look around and I found no evidence this is a notable concept or even a prolific meme.--Isotope23 talk 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this a bad faith nom? Delete since Wikipedia is not the place to support your new neologism. We don't put articles on here in case they get notable. And it's only a courtesy to notify the editors of a page of the AfD...accusing an editor of a bad faith nomination just because you created the article is just ridiculous. Smashville 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that it's not policy to notify article authors of AfDs on their articles. JuJube 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Term is defined in a number of different ways, but the sheer magnitude of use, almost entirely for anonymous names, makes a prima facie case for the adoption of the term in popular culture, even if it is not in standard dictionaries. eg (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22joey+shabadoo%22+OR+%22joey+joe+joe%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=20&sa=N)JJJ999 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would respond that the usage of this as a "username" doesn't really make any strong case for the adoption of this term in popular culture... stating that would be original research as has stated below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete and Merge any notable, sourceable knowledge which may ever appear into the The Last Temptation of Homer. I use the subjunctive in this case, because no notable, sourceable knowledge has yet appeared.  It may be that wikipedia is ahead of media watching pop culture at this point -- in a few weeks, Newsweek or People or someone might run a blurb about this new pop-culture phenomenon, Joey Shabadoo, and we can source that and use it.  But to write an article about what the phenomenon is based solely on our own observations about it violates the No Original Research policy; we just can't do it. Deltopia 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Isotope23's and JuJube's comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 23 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.