Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puck bunny


 * 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 - does not pass WP:NEO. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Puck bunny

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Being an avid ice hockey fan, I can truthfully say that I have never heard of the term "puck bunny," "puckslut," or "puckf%#&" in all my years of following the sport. Plus, this article only contains one minor reference (which, by the way, is called the myth of the puck bunny). Delete as non-notable. P.B. Pilhet 00:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism, even though I do like the sound of "puck bunny". Not too big on the sound of "puck (word that shouldn't be asterisked out since Wikipedia isn't censored)", though. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I recognize that Wikipedia is not censored. However, I personally do not believe in either speaking or typing profanity (and puckf%#& is pretty gross profanity, too) unless absolutely necessary.  Those censorship guidelines do not apply to censoring yourself, just other editor's comments or articles that require obscenity (such as the article about the F word). --  P.B. Pilhet  03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As much as I'd like to keep it in - just in response to that painful article cited. Non-legit neologism. MarkinBoston 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this perhaps a UK-specific term? I'd like to hear from a Brit before I !vote delete, as there is a (slim) chance that this is noteworthy. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, as the person who originally created the article, Never29, claims to be from Australia. Also, ice hockey is (from what I hear) not very popular in the United Kingdom. --  P.B. Pilhet  03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Definitely not a British neologism, the sport is very very small over here. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason I ask is that the source provided in the article appears to be from the UK. I know ice hockey is a very minor sport there, which compounds the difficulty in deciding whether or not this is a legitimate term. faithless   (speak)  04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, wait, we have an academic source using the term (albeit from the UK where ice hockey is as welcome as cold beer)? There are other sources apparently although I confess never having heard the term myself. According to this the term is in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Move to Wiktionary . I'm actually pretty surprised that an avid hockey fan has never heard the term "puckbunny". The problem with this article is that "puckbunny" is usually spelled as one word, not two. Googling "puckbunny" turns up around 10,000 hits. "Puckbunny" is definitely a known and used hockey term. It's just not something that evolves and has a lot of source material written on it. It needs to be in wiktionary as a definition...maybe a little bit posted to groupies, but definitely not its own article Smashville 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - it already exists on Wiktionary, but I stand by the delete. This is never going to be more than a definition. Smashville 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It has been the topic of 2 "academic" studies, although both by militant feminists. Has documented usage on google new for a 10 year period which puts it past neologism. It meets notability, although it needs better sources. They are however, available.Horrorshowj 01:58, 30 August 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.