Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quailtard


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Jdavidb. Closing because A. This is under DRV now, B. Unless I'm misreading, *community* (vs. new anon) consensus supports deletion, and C. Guidelines clearly support deletion. I'm sure this won't be uncontroversial, but DRV can elect to relist this if they feel it's best. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quailtard
Previously ed with the reason: ''Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary (from User:JiFish). "Quailtards" isn't "Truthiness" (from User:CrypticBacon''. This term is not widespead enough for inclusion. Gets 5 google hits. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Actually it gets 6! google hits now... You do realize that BoingBoing outed this not to save quailtards, but to show that Wikipedia nannies are loons. You've already lost.
 * Delete per nom. --  Wikipedical 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a one-time joke; not likely to ever be encyclopedic. --Allen 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What makes this different from every other Daily Show joke that will be forgotten by next week?  Exactly. -- Kinu  t /c  01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Ruby  01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Avalon 05:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dick Cheney hunting incident. That we're even discussing this is silly. I added it to WP:BJAODN. --User At Work 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While I plan to introduce the phrase "wingless qualitards" as often as I can into future conversations, it's a single joke from a TV show -- on basic cable, no less. Delete. --Calton | Talk 11:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. S iva1979 Talk to me  15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you thought it should be deleted, why isn't it still prod? Delete. r3m0t talk 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bungopolis 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FYI, the article has been BoingBoing'd, which should explain the influx of unsigned votes. Kamek 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep it. Or is Wikipedia really so boring and its editors so literal??? --Michael.slavitch 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) User's first edit --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. But no more boring than, say, Ottawa or Winnipeg. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Voting is being influenced by BoingBoing appearance. This is not significant. --Mysteriojack 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The keep nominations are likely sockpuppets. They aren't even signed.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]](talk) 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - No need to delete it now. If it really is as transient as the 'Delete' voters claim, it can be deleted in a few months.  But I've observed several people "in the wild" using it, so it might actually be a lasting word.  --Brouhaha 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete its not encyclopedia worthy, its a temporary word that isn't even central to the Cheney hunting controversy. But it is probably not worth trying to fight the newbies coming here from the BoingBoing article link to vote keep, I've seen this phenomenon before in relation to the Fark.com fad.  --Ben Houston 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Michael Slavitch's comment. Mdahmus 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. But you'll probably have to redo this again anyway, given that BoingBoing is now going to be sending hordes to stuff the ballot box. I like BB, but I wish crowds' reactions were a bit more considered.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a friggin' pop culture manual. Daily Show is great, but this isn't a Daily Show wiki.  &mdash; WCityMike (T 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Of course you should keep it. Duh. --64.171.214.254 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - patently unencyclopedic. Cyde Weys  20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Brouhaha's comment. --digital_me 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Come on, it's not doing any harm. Lighten up. Pariah23 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --- This very commotion will make Quailtard worth keeping. 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Funny and compelling...and likely to stick around. And besides, what the heck do you have against BoingBoing? I consult both your sites equally...


 * So this is where USENET net.kooks go to die. Michael Slavitch 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep: all it takes is a BOING BOING notice to bring them out. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have speeded this. I'm probably WP:IAR here, but I'm concerned that with a high-traffic site focusing attention here, there will be enough obstructive activity from folks coming in that this page will stick around too long and change the fact that there are presently on five Google hits.  That would cause Wikipedia to be responsible (partially) for creating a new term, which in my opinion is a very damaging thing.  (This is my answer to all of you folks who say things like "it's not doing any harm," which is a comment completely irrelevant to the purpose and rules of Wikipedia.)  The article itself documents that the Daily Show created this word just this week.  In my opinion, there is no way in the world that a "new term" created this week is presently notable.  It should not be listed here until society is using it (and even then, we are not a dictionary).  And we should be very, very careful to make sure we do not cause society to begin using it.  For this reason, I felt somebody had to act quickly to delete this.  Any admin may reverse my actions, and I won't complain, in which case count my vote as a definite delete. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Too late buddy. By your own actions you've just done it.  Michael Slavitch 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Listed on Deletion Review. If you don't like criteria for speedy deletion, don't invent your own, move to alter the criteria. &mdash; WCityMike (T 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. Considering this on deletion review is the right way to handle it.  As I said, if you convince a single admin to recreate it, I'm cool with that and will let the community sort it out.  Check out WP:IAR some time.  It means we don't let the encylopedic quality of the project become a casuality to process.  But it also means that if I IAR and some other admin disagrees, we default back to the existing process. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've checked out WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Both strike me as incredibly overly flexible clauses that allow anyone to circumvent rules at their whim.  No offense to you.  It's just I think you exercised very poor judgment in letting your personal opinion circumvent the right way to go about this.  I agree with your end result, but not your means. &mdash; WCityMike (T 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's cool. I agree that you are well within your rights to express your disagreement, to request review, etc.  If you can convince any admin to give this a shot at AfD, I won't protest if they undo my actions.  If you can convince Deletion Review to put it back, that'll be fine with me as well.  I don't know how I can be any more amenable.  Those policies are for precisely situations where we have to get to certain end results with certain means that are ordinarily proscribed.  As for the possibility that WP:IAR might be overly flexible, if you don't like the policy, I suggest you move to have it altered. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a few days. If you keep this up, you'll be forced to have a long entry. Michael Slavitch 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * not that many mentions --Geedubber 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone. It is currently redirected to the incident it describes, and I don't see anything particularly bad about that. Cdcon 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a joke repository.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. --Hansnesse 02:46, 18 February 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.