Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoon


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Phoon
Originally prodded under WP:NFT, author added documentation of the concept and deprodded. I am still less than convinced of its notability, as it seems to be documented on one minor website that collects photos of this pose. At the very least, the article needs a substantial rewrite. Heimstern Läufer 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Significantly a simple image search on search engines reveals people posting this pose and referring to it as a phoon. There ought to be a location where people can get an explanation as to the origins of the naming of the pose. I don't think many of the people using the term even understand why they are calling it that. As to "multiple languages" eliciting an "ROFL" -- which seems inappropriate -- Volunteers from several countries have put in significant hours of their own time making the site accessible to others. It is not a commercial site, is maintained solely by its creator, and grows by submissions from others, like the Mirror Project, or others. How does this differ from WP:NFT? This word "stuck." All words are invented. If you can list an article on the uncertain origins of the word shit which garners increasing worldwide use and understanding, adding Phoon with an absolutely certain and verfiable origin (and not WP:BOLLOCKS as erroneously asserted above), and widespread use should not be an issue. --David R. Darrrow drdarrow — Drdarrow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, please...as soon as possible. I'd like to hear the authors explanation of how this is an "incomplete description of historical significance". What historical significance exactly?  If it isn't {db-nonsense}, it should be {db-group}. --Onorem 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, neologism, unremarkable people/groups, non-notable website, ... Thryduulf 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly BJAODN it. "Translated into several other languages..." rofl. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original prodder. -- Merope Talk 06:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteVanity, OR, not notable.Edison 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete, reasonable description of well known phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.242.41 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. WP mistaken for Uncyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete, I AM the Author of original article "Phoon"
 * Look, I am enthusiastic about learning how to produce a viable article. Admittedly I do not fully understand, but in this case I wish to provide an excellent definition/article. Though the site (www.phoons.com) is indeed "minor" it was once a Yahoo! Pick of the Week, has been written up in international newspapers, magazines, etc. and has attracted viewers from all over the world.
 * Guilty as charged, (so far)... However, I am very interested in contributing to other articles. I think Wiki is a fascinating tool and phenomenon, and would enjoy being an ongoing contributor. Hang in there with me.

Incorrect --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdarrow (talk • contribs) <--was written by John Darrow, edited for links by David. John has been notified to create his own account and sign his contributions, noting his vote has been "re-struck." --drdarrow 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not delete [vote struck, has already voted above] [vote unstruck by user:drdarrow because user's brother (John Darrow) wrote the following paragraphs] [vote restruck: If your brother wants to "vote" he can create his own account] -- David wrote the above. Why doesn't someone contact one of us, instead of this silliness? This is a legtimate article worthy of Wiki, and we would both (John and David) appreciate your HELP in building a solid, worthy article instead of a cursory reading and spontaneous rejection.--drdarrow 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Worth your considering? ...Regarding "I am still less than convinced of its notability, as it seems to be documented on one minor website that collects photos of this pose," can't the same be said about "geocaching"? It's fully described on its own website, so "why mention it in a wiki page?" While geocaching is a far greater phenomenon, still, not everyone has heard about it. It is, likewise, a made-up word. Yet, it is wiki-worthy as a current phenomenon.
 * I'm the author of the phoons.com site; my brother initiated the wiki page that started this discussion; that was his own choice. He noted I might want to chime in with additional thoughts. My guess is that the proposed deletions here have more to do with those individuals disliking and wanting to distance themselves from the idea of phooning. That's completely fair to dislike phooning. However, I'm thinking that disliking some phenomenon is not reason to delete it from the wiki. (I don't get why there are wiki pages dedicated to TV cartoons for elementary school kids, for example, but who am I to say it shouldn't be there?)
 * Just two days ago, a guy named Zack wrote to me out of the blue and ask why "Phoon" was not in the wiki. Adults are interested in this topic, too.
 * By the way, to get a sense of how "phooning" has crept around the world, search Flickr for the tag 'phoon' or 'phooning'. Search blogsearch.google.com for phoon, phoons, phooned, and phooning.
 * Search Google Images category.
 * An argument was made that there is a minor website collecting photos of the poses. Yet if you scan the 'net as I suggested, you'll find that it is the primary collection, while others maintain their own collections (some large, one in Norway, one in Italy, and others small (individual Flickr accounts)).
 * Lastly, I recommend visiting phoons.com and selecting any picture AND observing the category names at the bottom of the picture page. Follow a category of interest and I think you will understand why other viewers have been drawn in and why the word 'phoon' now sticks in their head...and why Phoon is thus worth considering as viable.
 * John Darrow 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (my apologies for bumbling with wiki tags...I'm scrambling to learn, tho!)


 * Delete Even if some editors, including the original author, like the sound of the word, it is still a wholly non-notable and nonsensical neologism.--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Anthony.bradbury. Seems to be a neologism, and not necessarily the best term for that pose. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a neogolism, but whether it is a coined term, one that few if any of the comments/voters above have ever heard, is not inconsequential. In the minds of many (see links in John Darrow's paragraphs above) it is a word describing the specific pose. The purpose, depite A Rubin's objection, is not to give a name to the pose, rather to give a definition and origin of the word/sound which has, internationally, attached itself to that pose. It is not the claim of the author or his brother that the pose was invented by him, rather that the word was, and has a noteworthy origin, and that this resource recognizes it. Argument: Kleenex did not invent the facial tissue, but because of advertising and brand recognition has in the minds of most English-speaking people become the word for facial tissue. --drdarrow 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News is a world-class reputable newspaper that did a story about Phooning in the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk • contribs)
 * The Phoon appears to be well-known enough to have its own Wiki Page. I find the anti-Phoon sentiments on the previous comments to be curious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. I find this whole phooning business to be entertaining, and I will probably try out the pose for my next photoshoot... but there is no verifiable notability in the article. Please find references to significant publications discussing phooning and include them as inline citations within the article and voila, you will have yourself a wikipedia article. Otherwise, it is just something you made up at school one day. Themindset 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.phoons.com/o/dallasnews.pdf#search=%22dallas%20newspaper%20phooning%22
 * Disagree. The article appears to be about the brothers, and the "phenomenon" is secondary.  Still a neologism, and still not appropriate. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2006 (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.