Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitburger


 * 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 - dicdef. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Shitburger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide... Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history". This article us clearly and unequivocally about a slang term (it tells us precisely that in the lede), and accordingly does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The only source cited which seems to be discussing the word as a concept rather than providing an example of usage is a dictionary of slang. The article makes it clear that it isn't discussing a specific concept (i.e. a "hamburger of inferior quality"), but instead the multiple meanings of a term - burgers, persons, surfboards, an Indonesian rock band. And even ignoring the 'not a dictionary' policy, the article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG standards - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" A single dictionary definition and a collection of WP:OR examples of usage of the term wouldn't demonstrate notability anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as author. I believe I have made the case that while, yes, this is clearly slang terminology, it is more than that. In the spirit of my efforts to get feedback on the article, I welcome all comments and efforts to improve it. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it 'more than' a slang term? What 'thing' (as opposed to 'term') is the article discussing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The surfboard and the punk band. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So the article is about low-quality burgers, surfboards and bands? How exactly is that an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, all respect, if I didn't believe it was suitable for Wikipedia, I wouldn't have written it. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. How about we both let the process play out? &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One more note: to argue that this supersedes NOTDIC, I'm (correctly) required to specify why. Wiktionary, as the primary example, lists etymology, origin, definition(s), and brief examples. That's it. This article—IMHO—adds what wikt can't: uses in literature, popular culture and the news; and proper nouns. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 06:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can't supersede policy by pretending that it doesn't exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Shit No social or historical significance has been shown, and that is required under WP:Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. Accordingly, shitcan it, or brace for a whole slew of further articles along similar lines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to McDonalds as after all there burgers are, Anyway joking aside We're not a dictionary so Delete it. . – Davey 2010 Talk 05:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Was asked to perhaps revisit this .... but unfortunately my position hasn't changed on this, IMHO the article is only serving as a dictionary and should be moved to WikiDictionary but meh that's my 2¢ on it. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, well-covered in numerous secondary sources over sustained period of time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which secondary sources are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's literally hundreds of potential sources at, we could easily take this article to WP:FA quality someday. Have a great day, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't one do that with lots of words? For example: .  Where is the social or historical significance?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And how exactly are these examples of the usage of the word 'shitberger' secondary sources anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article Shitburger itself, already contains info on Origin/Literature/Popular culture/news, with cited sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if any word now qualifies for a Wikipedia article if it is contained in the vocabulary of James Franco. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, examples of the usage of a word are not in any shape or form secondary sources. I am frankly astonished that anyone who has been contributing to Wikipedia as long as you have could make such a fundamental error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, also quite easy to find sources that discuss the word and discuss the usage of the word, in those searches linked, above. Please remember to enjoy life and all it offers and spend some quality time with those that care about you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I am sure the person closing this discussion will take note of the fact that you have entirely failed to produce the sources you claim to have located, and accordingly dismiss your '!keep' vote accordingly. And as for your remarks regarding my life, I suggest you mind your own fucking business (now run off and complain about the rude word I've just used...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per being a (yes) stupid phrase that has, through sourced usage (not WP:OR) become part of American culture. We cannot ignore sources or usage per an animus toward the word or phrase itself. Being called a slang term does not denigrate its wide and multi-sourced usage. Examples of other similar slang terms within Wikipedia include fubar and clusterfuck, and no doubt there are many dozens more just as dis-liked. I am reminded of the denigrating word nigga (a word usually fine for one race to use but not another) and the also-denigrating words chink, spic, greaser, et all. Its the sourced usage that allows an article on such heinous terms, including usage... however disliked or inappropriate for family use.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and agreed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that curse words should not get a free pass just because they are curse words. Can someone give me an example of a curse word that does not warrant a Wikipedia article on account of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UNCENSORED None get a "free pass" and are included through WP:N... though common usage and multiple sources.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd still appreciate the example, if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am example of something that does not belong here? Sorry.... I'll leave that to the deletionists. I prefer improving weak topics so they may be kept.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Applying consistent standards - as laid down in Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy - is not in any shape or form 'censorship'. As far as I can see, nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because the term is in any way objectionable. It should be deleted because Wikipedia in not a dictionary, and because no evidence has been provided that the term is in any way notable. Instead, beyond a dictionary definition, we are provided with nothing but examples of usage. WE don't have an article on 'things described as being blue', 'or things called Bob', so why should 'things called shitburger' get an article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is noting more than the definition of the term and some assorted trivia on its usage. P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I was asked by to re-comment/reconsider given the recent expansion of the article, I just want to say that I have seen the recent work on the article and I am sorry to say that from what I can tell I it still only contains the dictionary definition of the term and some some non-notable trivia on its usage, such as "someone said it on a talk show" or "someone used the term in a book". I therefore believe that WP:DICT still stands. Sorry  P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many negative terms that merit articles herein though being defined and being sourced as having wide usage. Yes, Wikipeida is not a dictionary... but it is a place where readers expect to find how certain terms have become part of our culture, and in what manner. Indeed WP:NOTDIC specifically instructs "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a source which discusses this 'wide usage' in depth, or is this just original research based on Google? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Andy, being able to read what the multiple sources citing the article share does not make a reader's ability or my own "original research". Contrarily, it most specifically does not, as citing article is exactly what is expected per policy and guidelines.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, let's say your plan succeeds. What's next, shit? Fuck? Asshole? Nigga? Grump? &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but If memory serves AndyTheGrump has attempted in the past to delete one or two articles that do not involve any curse words or obscenities. So, I suspect that his plan would be to continue being impartial in that regard.  Fuck yeah.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nothing in my deletion rationale in any way relates to the fact that the word in question is a (mild by today's standards) obscenity. Get a clue. Or a life. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the wake of some research, I find no evidence that you are attacking this or any other term, so I withdraw and apologize for the suggestion of any "plan". In my defense, your propensity toward vehement argument with anyone who disagrees with you gave me that impression.
 * So, back to the subject: I would respectfully ask anyone registering a delete per NOTDIC read its subsection When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. I have zero doubt that Shitburger does indeed "go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term" (note the "or", as opposed to "and", which would be a different animal). This policy demands that this article be kept, even absent likely future improvement. Given their structural similarities, deleting this article would require the same be done for shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. ("And tits doesn't even belong on the list!!") &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Now, would you please list, from amongst those cited in the article, which sources discuss the "social or historical significance of the term" - I can see no evidence of this. Instead, the article cites a three-word definition in the Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English ("poor-quality food"), and a succession of examples of usage of the term for a disparate array of things and concepts. There is no sourced discussion on its significance at all as far as I can see - and that is required to demonstrate the notability of the subject. As I stated in my deletion rationale above, I consider that even without WP:NOTDICTIONARY the article would fail to pass the GNG, since evidence of in-depth discussion of the topic (which is the term 'shitburger', rather than 'random things given the name shitburger') in multiple WP:RS sources has not been provided. As for other articles, I'm sure you've seen WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I'm not going to get drawn into an off-topic debate about other articles, beyond pointing out that people have written books about 'fuck' and 'shit', and it takes little effort to find social commentary on the significance of the terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah—sarcasm gives you indigestion. Okay.

First, your assertion that the article is allowed only to pass GNG as a term is a straw man, so I'll dispatch that. Second, its use as a term in literature and in popular culture as meticulously referenced satisfies GNG anyway. Third, you've missed the meaning of "in-depth": the passage "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" refers to the discussion here, on Wikipedia, as opposed to the sources, where there is no such requirement. Fourth, James Franco. (Edit: Fifth, Stephen Colbert. Sixth, Mark Halperin. Seventh, Matt Rhoades. Eighth, I "" no such thing.) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dismiss it if you like, I'm sure whoever closes this discussion will do so on the basis of policy, and not because you don't understand the GNG, or the meaning of the phrase 'straw man'.'When you state that the article is about a term, and write an article consisting of nothing beyond usages of the term, that is what the subject is - and per GNG, you have do provide secondary sources giving in-depth discussion of the topic, no matter how many policies you misrepresent, how many guidelines you misapply, how many irrelevant stock phrases you churn out, and how many utterly irrelevant articles you link. Either provide the required evidence from secondary sources that the term 'shitburger' meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and isn't subject to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, or accept that the article be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let the hatred flow within you. I believe in the data needed to save this article. You believe in the data needed to kill it. Time to let the community decide. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 06:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hatred has precisely nothing to do with it. And stop pretending to have a rational argument for keeping this self-defining 'article' - you know full well there aren't the secondary sources to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the article seems to be supported by uses of the word rather than discussion of it. I haven't done the research to find out if that's all there is, but I don't think that sort of thing is enough to establish notability.  I also think the above argument is going nowhere fast and that its participants need to calm down.  ekips39 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)  Wait, no, it's been inactive for several hours.  I'll be quiet now.  eki</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor about this. It's been quite the challenge ... &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  02:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: I have asked the delete voters to revisit the encyclopedia article in the wake of continuing improvements thereto. I believe I am so entitled by virtue of the arguments to which the keep voters have been subjected herein. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the supposed improvements have addressed the core issue - the lack of evidence of significant discussion of the subject matter of the article in secondary sources. The article still consists of nothing but a dictionary definition, and primary-source examples of usage. It will be self-evident to the closer that by a simple inspection of the 'Major differences' section in WP:NOTDIC that this article clearly and unequivocally falls into the 'Wiktionary' rather than 'Wikipedia' definition. It is about a term rather than a thing - the things discussed (poor-quality food, surfboards, a band, a term of abuse etc) are separate subjects for an encyclopaedia, and if they met Wikipedia notability guidelines - which has of course not been demonstrated - they would have separate articles, with 'shitberger' being nothing but a disambiguation page. Your apparent inability to understand this simple distinction I find frankly surprising, but it is policy - and as long as it remains policy, this article is simply non-compliant: and accordingly, the closer has no choice but to close this as 'delete'. If you wish WP:NOTDICT policy to be revised, or superseded, argue your case in the appropriate place. 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
 * With apologies to the late Johnny Carson, you are wrong, WORDISSUBJECT-breath. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  22:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Game Change has to do with it. I agree with AndyTheGrump, but would add that you probably shouldn't try to edit policy if the policy change might affect the shitburger article.  It doesn't matter what you say at the policy page, or when you say it, or what your motives are; you can get in trouble for editing policy pages if there's a particular article you have in mind  and conversely any edit to a policy page will often be opposed unless you can give a real-life problem it would solve at Wikipedia.  Kind of catch-22, I suppose.  It's bitten me in the ass, so be careful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Satisfies "significant discussion". Meantime, I wouldn't edit a policy page if you threatened to force-feed me a shitburger. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That example regarding Rhoades is a bit of a shitburger. Suppose he put the problems into two piles labelled serious and mild.  Should we then change those disambiguation pages into articles?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This reply is a bit of a shitburger. (Sorry. ) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) I cannot recall seeing a better example of how Wikipedia suffers under strict, by-the-book adherence to policy. This is an encyclopedia article, and a damned good one, and its (likely) loss saddens me ... &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be notable from looking at the refs, but that topic, what the... -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have clicked through the standard "find sources" links, investigated the webpages revealed therein, and found nothing but uses of the word, no discussion of it (such as this); that is, except for pages such as this that discuss it a little but are blogs, and this which is some kind of dictionary site. I even found this, which Google Translate revealed to be only brief uses.  I was able to access all the news results but [link removed due to hitting the link blacklist].  I have also re-read the article after the improvements, and I still believe that the refs are either mere uses of the word or things that happen to be named shitburger.  The variety of meanings this word can have, combined with the fact that no one has addressed the topic directly as required by WP:GNG (unlike the other swear words listed above, which either have sources discussing the words or are disambiguation pages or pointers to Wiktionary), lead me to the unfortunate conclusion that the topic of "shitburgers" in general is not notable -- though the word is well-known --, and therefore we should delete this article.  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #04f">ki</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This clearly doesn't fall into the class of articles described at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If all it takes to make an encyclopedia article about a word is a bunch of discriminated definitions illustrated with examples of usage, then every entry in the Oxford English Dictionary is automatically an encyclopedia article. Deor (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Much as I'd like to read encyclopedic information about this subject, there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of it. We expect encyclopedic entries to define terms more than give examples of usage. The subject seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. Sorry and maybe if more in-depth sources can be found which discuss the subject then this can be revisited in the future via undeletion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I'd be convinced if there was extensive discussion of the word's place and usage in contemporary society, along the lines of the article Fuck, but apart from a brief section at the top this just seems to be a laundry list of incidences of its use. With a brief etymology, this really belongs at Wiktionary, not here.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 31 March 2015 (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.