Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuked the fridge


 * 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   no consensus, although I was sore tempted to close this as a merge. Given the discussion below, I would wager that the eventual fate of this article will be to redirect/merge it somewhere, likely to Jump the shark. I would encourage some discussion on the talk page (as well as that of the target) to get some better consensus on the possibility of a merger. Shereth 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuked the fridge

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

New phrase coined from the new Indiana Jones movie. Despite the sources, this phrase doesn't meet the verifiability or notability guidelines. Of the provided sources, UrbanDictionary, a screenshot of an MSN page and the site pushing this phrase aren't reliable sources, the Entertainment Weekly link is a mere mention of the phrase, and the Newsweek and WJXT sources aren't substantial enough to explain the impact of the statement (the whole coverage of the phrase in both of them is "hey, this is a popular phrase on the internet" and not much else). Note that we've deleted articles on this phrase before at Articles for deletion/Nuke the fridge and Articles for deletion/Nuking the Fridge. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The second AfD ended in a speedy G4; an admin should look at the deleted versions, in case this is a recreation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this falls under the guidelines of WP:NOTDICT as it doesn't establish the notability of the term.--Finalnight (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I looked through some of the sources before making a few edits in attempt to improve the article, and I felt comfortable with its foundation - particularly the Newsweek article and the wink-and-nod EW mention.  Is this article impeccably sourced as is?  No, and not all the sources in there qualify under RS.  Is this article capable of being reliably sourced?  I think it can be, based on the foundation that's already there. Townlake (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the reasoning at the last two AfDs. This is still far from being notable --T-rex 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The first AfD was a proper snowball delete for no reliable sources; the second was a proper speedy delete for recreation of deleted material. I don't believe either rationale applies here. Townlake (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At least read the discussions. I'm not arguing delete on the basis of the outcomes, but rather on the reasoning presented in the previous two afds --T-rex 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I clicked the EW link first and was going to vote delete, but the Newsweek article is all about the phrase. It's got enough information for an article.  I think I would've voted delete for the last two AfDs seeing as the Newsweek article was released this week, but I think this one crosses over to keep. Vickser (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase may have already jumped the shark, but it appears notable based on the reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Newsweek article qualifies as Significant coverage, Newsweek is a reliable source. The article in its current form doesn't fall under the guidelines of WP:NOTDICT since it isn't a "dictionary definition" nor an "usage guide", it includes encyclopedic content about the origins, relation to jump the shark, and usage in third party sites. Diego. If the article finally gets deleted, Merge its content into Jump the shark. (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It falls under NOTDICT as it is a slang guide, see #2.--Finalnight (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is slang, but it's a "descriptive article", not a "prescriptive guide". Thus #2 woudln't apply. Diego (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've done a lot of editing of this article and in the process I've found that there are numerous media mentions besides just those mentioned. Examples include the Toronto Sun and the Wall Street Journal .  Not to mention "nuke the fridge" (in quotes) currently has over 650,000 results when searched on Yahoo.  If anything, this article should have "nuke/nukes/etc. + the fridge" redirecting toward it as well, as this will make it easier for those who come across the phrase elsewhere to find it here. --AndrewK (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)AndrewK
 * The WSJ coverage is just a list of popular search phrases. It only explains the origin of the phrase, which isn't enough to establish notability. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Potboiler. Note that there are innumerable phrases of this sort, including:
 * Past its sell-by date
 * Scraping the barrel
 * Played out
 * Overstayed its welcome
 * Long in the tooth
 * Too many trips to the well and lots of individual words such as tired, exhausted, uninspired, rehash, tentpole, etc. These are all dictionary material per WP:DICTIONARY and the encyclopedia should only have one article on the topic of creative exhaustion rather than one for each phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

-Merge; The artical should be added as a subsection to Jumping the Shark.--Little Jimmy (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all those phrases have as clearly established origin as Nuke the fridge, nor they have mainstream articles or websites dedicated to them.Diego (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your mainline article is in a news source, right? And it's appearing there because the appearance of a new phrase is news, right?  Wikipedia is not only not a dictionary, it is also not the news. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. But the concept described in the article is not an 'event'. Diego (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the event is the first run of this particular movie. Every summer blockbuster gets a huge amount of silly season press coverage.  The movie is still only weeks old and so this matter is still news not history. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but change title to what it was when deleted a few weeks ago as Nuke the fridge, so I can understand why the authors altered the title slightly to this.  In the first AfD, nobody could cite any sources, and most of us, including me, said that it would ever catch on.  I got my "eat crow" moment a couple of weeks later when "nuke the fridge" turned up as an article in Newsweek magazine.   It's also reflective of the mindset of a lot of 20-somethings who have grown up in the CGI-era and who insist on realism in their Hollywood fantasies; perhaps it says something as well about people whose loyalty to anything is short-lived.  However, in an age when all hit movies get sequels and when everyone with a computer can publish a film review, "nuke the fridge" is a natural counterpart to "jump the shark". Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jump the shark until it's clear that this phrase has actual legs. Powers T 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not exist to record the definition, etymology and usage of every word or phrase.  Wiktionary does that - and frankly they do it far better than we do.  Editors who want to work on those kinds of articles should be politely pointed to Wiktionary.  Rossami (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Newsweek alone satisfies notability, but also EW, and I saw an article on it in a local newspaper here in Alberta ... it's got notability even if it doesn't have the staying power of Jump the shark. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the coverage from Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly are both trivial coverage. EW's a mere mention of the phrase, and Newsweek is just "Hey, lots of people are say this phrase this week!" Neither really establishes notability. However, does that Alberta newspaper go into more detail about it? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The one in the Alberta paper is probably the article in the Toronto Sun, since the same article showed up in papers across Canada. --AndrewK (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to jump the shark.  D C E dwards 1966  17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - CNBC used the phrase and discussed its definition on their newscast entitiled "Have Media Stocks Nuked the Fridge" Check it out here: CNBC  It also has a write up in various newspapers including the Toronto Sun, see here:  Toronto Sun and gets over 1 million returns on google if you search for "nuke the fridge."  Also if Jump the Shark can stay, then so should Nuke the Fridge. --Nukedthefridge (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Nukedthefridge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That CNBC article doesn't "discuss" the phrase - it just uses it in the headline and then offers a short explanation of the phrase and it's origins. There isn't any coverage of it's impact there, or anything else to establish notability. And the fact that Jump the shark has an article does not justify a "Nuke the fridge" entry; "Nuke the fridge" has to be notable on it's own. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The CNBC article is an example of it being used by a significant source. It is proof that the phrase is not just in use by a bunch of Internet fanboys.  It seems that you are opposed to this regardless of how notable it becomes.  I don't see how something on almost a million web pages is not notable.  --AndrewK (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify something here. Notability has nothing to do with this decision.  Lots of words are common and widely used.  We don't have dictionary entries on them because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  The only relevant question in this discussion is whether this entry has any potential to every expand past the definitions, etymology and usage notes.  Rossami (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that notability has nothing to do with the decision is key to note, since the original post that suggested this article be deleted is based on two things. One is notability, which we have just established is not a consideration here.  The second is verifiability, which can be easily refuted by the fact that several reputable news sources have used the phrase.--AndrewK (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good clarification. I'd also like to add that there's an additional test - is the entry ever going to expand past the point where it would be better as a section of another article? Orpheus (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was replying to NeoChaos, who used "notable" twice and even linked to it.--AndrewK (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I suspect that Rossami was replying to both of you, and anyone else who wants to/has use(d) WP:N as a reason for either keep or delete. Orpheus (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO. The fact that journalists are always seeking corny references isn't reason to have an article on the subject.  If I have to hear another "no country for...." reference, I'll scream.  I mean, any realistic source on nuked the fridge will say that it is an outgrowth from "jumped the couch" which grew out of "jump the shark".  The concept of "something is outlandishly past its prime and we can point to the exact moment when it happened" is notable and this ought to either be merged to jump the shark or potboiler.  also, indy 4 nuked the fridge with the appearance of CGI prairie dogs in the first few frames. Protonk (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jump the Shark. The article can essentially be summed up in a one-liner there, under "Similar phrases", without losing any encyclopedic content. Plus it would be nice to have something sourced in a "similar/trivia/in pop culture/etc" list, so we should take the opportunity while it's here. Orpheus (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism. Or at least redirect to Jump the Shark. Jedibob5 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Another neologism du jour - just what Wikipedia doesn't need. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jumping the Shark; long-term notability isn't assured, but sufficient to warrant a mention in context of JtS. --M ASEM 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jumping the shark. Concept seems notable in its own right, but certainly adds historical continuity to the shark article. (WP:NOTDICT is being thrown around a lot these days, as if we're supposed to have some automatic, intuitive understanding that the article in question violates that policy. Even when something along the lines of a compelling link between the article and that policy is suggested, it is conveniently ignored that WP:NOTDICT favours expansion beyond the dictdef, and transwikification only if the article is an obvious dictdef. Here, merging would accomplish the expansion goal in a sense.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable and notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism, it's way too new to know if it has enough staying power to be encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are enough uses of this phrase by major publications to qualify it as notable. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, invented term. At best it deserves a mention on jumped the shark.--Him and a dog 12:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; if it ever enters wide usage, it will surely come back. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; neologism. The phrase is way too young to be notable enough for an encyclopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is an uninspired, imitative term that we can do without. --  Iterator12n   Talk  19:39, 13 July 2008 (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.