Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shambag


 * 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 unreferenced slang. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shambag


The article purports to describe a stereotype, the name of which is a slang word. Searching for sources I find none at all that document any such type of person, let alone that can be used to confirm any of the contents of the article (such as the clothing preferences of this type of person). This article is documentation, being constructed firsthand directly by Wikipedia editors, for something for which there is no prior documentation outside of Wikipedia; it is original research, which is forbidden here. There's no evidence that this is even an alternative name for the stereotypes that are documented, such as chav, so no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clearly described, and it has been thoroughly explained, what don't you understand. Mind you I could publish a book within the next few years on it should you really need references, to a locally used word that I've heard being used. New words have to begin somewhere eh? garethppls 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, with the requirement for published works such as newspaper articles or books to be used as sources for articles, I must say "Here is not that 'somewhere'". -- saberwyn 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, non notable neologism. 72 GHits, most of which are nothing to do with this term (most are non English words that happen to share the spelling). Nuttah68 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable original research. ArchStanton 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people using this word on their myspace, bebo and other personal pages. You can find them if you simply google the word (i do not wan't to invade their privacy by linking to personal pages). You will note that all of the people are from the areas we pointed out that the word is in use.
 * the word is in use in the areas we point out and it is also spreading outwards from these areas. It is a legitamite word and i don't see your problems with it. It is well explained and i'm sure that people will find the page useful. Cahillgod 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ATT every page must have references, all other arguments are secondary. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I live in Celbridge and i noticed this word is up for deletion because it does not have sources. Well, the word is widely used in Kildare and Dublin and it has been published in local newspapers, the only problem is that these local papers don't have web pages so they cannot be referenced for this page. I would not be happy for this word and its definition to be deleted as it is a perfectly legitimate entry and is widely used in the areas pointed out. 194.106.155.33 11:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not depend entirely on web-based sources. Print sources are entirely acceptable.  Please see WP:CITE for details on how to correctly cite them.—Carolfrog 03:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for those saying the article should stay, you may want to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nuttah68 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However it does more than a dictionary would do it tells you where it is commonly used and what is commonly associated with them. You wouldn't find that in any dictionary, no matter how big it is. I reckon that it is to full encyclopedic quality. - garethppls 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gareth, the entry defines the word, what type of people it relates to, what they commonly wear, their attitudes and their type of lifestyle and this is much, much more than a simple dictionary definition. Cahillgod 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And all of that is original research, which is forbidden here. You have cited no sources where the attitudes and lifestyle of this purported stereotype are documented, and no such sources actually exist.  Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge, outside of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not the place for editors to write firsthand observations, new theories, and personal inferences; nor is it the place for first documenting what has not been already documented elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We haven't made this up as you seem to think, but i can see that nothing will change your mind anyway, so go ahead, delete it. I will weep quietly in the corner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cahillgod (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Please look on the references section, a source where it is used has been added. garethppls 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one thinks that you made this word up. We do not need proof of its existence, what we do need are reliable sources that discuss its meaning.  If you read WP:ATT then it would be clear. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all. Your second cited article at least says something about shambags, but is a post to a web discussion forum by an unidentifiable person, and thus is not information can be relied upon to have been through a process of fact checking and peer review, and is not from an author whose reputation for accuracy can be checked.  Even if it were fact-checked and peer-reviewed and its author could be authenticated and were reliable, it supports none of the content of the article that you have written.  Uncle G 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Weep quietly in the corner"? Are you serious?  Do you think pity will move us?  I assure you, we are pitiless.  However, we are not immovable.  There is something that could change our minds.  We require sources.  If you do indeed have verifiable sources in print form, please cite them.  Even though we would not be able to immediately verify them with our own eyes because they are not web-based, we would have to assume good faith, and as we do have editors the world over, even local papers could be eventually checked out for accuracy.  So while I would not encourage you to make stuff up, or misrepresent the content of the sources, I would definitely encourage you to cite (and accurately summarize the content of) whatever sources you have.—Carolfrog 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all." - Not trying to be rude but are you blind? The first article defines what the word means.—garethppls 07:12, 14 March 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.