Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smeg (vulgarism)


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Smeg (vulgarism)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dicdef, neologism, trivia, appears to fail WP:RS WP:TRIVIA and WP:FICT. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if notable (and I make no contention that it IS), this belongs at Wiktionary and not Wikipedia per WP:DICDEF. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Subdolous 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete References are pathetic (urban dictionary for instance, hardly a solid reference) and quite frankly inadaquate to suffice inclusion within wikipedia. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This word is well known in the Liverpool and the Geordie community. As the article says it was used extensively in Red Dwarf, and this was the most popular science fiction program on British TV in the 90's. Everybody in my computer science class, at uni,  used to use it. I would say it is clearly notable. scope_creep 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And that makes it not a dicdef how? JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable, both in and outside the RD universe. Lugnuts 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of how notable it is, it will need stronger references. Killjoy966 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete belongs in wkt. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep
 * Passes WP:RS: Googling "Red Dwarf smeg" returns 86,000 hits. There are literally thousands of red dwarf websites, fan groups, conventions, books, and paraphernalia of all kinds. Its not going got hard to find sources for this.
 * Passes WP:Trivia: This isn't a list or made up or inconsequential fact.
 * Passes WP:FICT. A highly notable show, and a term used in every episode which has passed into every day language, this term was used in Liverpool long before the show aswell.Operating 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[
 * If you add reliable sources to the article, I may change my mind.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Google hits are not necessarily reliable secondary sources, and the majority of them are not. WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections for existing notable articles, not stand-alone articles based on trivia. WP:FICT applies to Red Dwarf, not this entry. Recommendation stands. Subdolous 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ghits aren't reliable, they point to notability tho. You've assumed the article is based on trivia but it isn't, there is plenty of material to fill this page some of it non RD related. You say WP:FICT applies to RD but not this article, so why do you want to delete the only article with material that has passed into popular culture? Operating 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll say it as many times as I have to: WP:BIG is not a valid argument. Ghits are not an indicator of notability, period. The key criteria for notabilty is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, for the subject itself. Just because you think it's notable doesn't mean it is, because you are not a reliable secondary source. Sorry, those are the rules. Subdolous 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok forget WP:Big/ghits, i already conceeded that point. Answer my question, why is Smeg which is used in popular culture less noteworthy than other RD concepts like Computer senility, Dollarpound, Felis sapiens, Fuchal, GELF, Silicon Heaven and Space Corps Directives which aren't used in popular culture? Operating 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' There are two aspects to this: one is notability; "used in popular culture" doesn't indicate notability either, because it's not a verifiable statement by itself (remember that you are not a reliable source) and is not driven by reliable secondary sources. The second is the fact that it's a definition of a word, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Subdolous 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Coment. Can i interest you in a smeg T shirt or [www.cafepress.com/buy/tv/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_14972496/opt_/fpt_/c_666/ smeg poster] or smeg patch. This is popular culture. I could go and buy a fair number of RD books which would reference Smeg and its use and put those in the article to source it correctly. As for dicdef because its used in popular culture its more than that. Operating 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - T-shirts, posters, and patches are not sources at all. RD books would count as primary sources, which should not be used to establish notability. Once again, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources on the word itself is what counts, and wikipedia is still not a dictionary. Subdolous 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is clearly just an overglorified dicdef. It bears a mention in the dab page, but that's it. JuJube 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per Lugnuts. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment added ref from BBC for Smeg-head. Lugnuts 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Operating, assuming enough reliable sources are available. I've never seen Red Dwarf, but I've heard this term often enough that it ought to be easy to expand. There should be more that can be added to the article to avoid being a dicdef. -Phoenixrod 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On second thought, this article isn't substantially different from Red_Dwarf. -Phoenixrod 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Dicdef of a made up from a TV show.17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Looks like this might be heading for no consensus...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly not a dictionary definition.  It's talking about the origin, history, and popularity of a term, not just the meaning.  Thus it's covered as a neologism / cultural phenomenon, something that is a suitable subject for Wikipedia.  This one appears real, sourceable, and relatively notable.  No problem.  The article needs improvement, but they all do.  Wikidemo 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Add sources and keep. Artw 22:47, 5 November 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.