Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoko


 * 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 keep. Yuser31415 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Smoko

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced slang term for a smoke break. Even if this met WP:V, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. janejellyroll 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources cited or assertion of verifiability.--lightspeedchick 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be a hoax, given the silly content. Even if the content were the result of vandalism, I agree with Lightspeedchick.Noroton 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now Strong Keep Calling it a "hoax" was a bit overboard on my part because I didn't really know whether "Smoko" actually existed or not, but the article was obviously pulling the reader's leg from top to bottom. Thanks to some fine work by some of the editor's here, it is now an entirely different article (is there anything remaining of the original at all except the title?). Different article, different opinion.Noroton 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it should be noted that Smoko is widely used by blue collar workers in Australia. Much of the rest of the content is rubbish. Maustrauser 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * * Keep I've changed my view. The editors have done an excellent job in cleaning the article up.  Good work! Maustrauser 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and perhaps redirect to cigarette. It is a commonly used phrase in Australia (as Maustrauser noted), although article is a bit rubbishy-from  K37  06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Bduke 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a fixup but worth keeping DXRAW 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is rubbish as is but there may well be a good article to be written about the institution of the smoko. I may do some research and rewrite if I have time.  If I don't, by all means delete. --Zeborah 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are currently four sources in the article, which is enough for this and I can only see the article getting better from this point on. I'm surpised it was called a hoax by another editor, but then I understand they probably are not from around this end of the world. Is extremely common not just in Australia but in NZ (I'd expect outside there, but my experience is naturally limited). Mathmo Talk 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, been looking at the history. Was of a rather low standard when first nominated, so that is understandable. However DXRAW has since greatly improved it. Mathmo Talk 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand that some editors are not aware of the term, but it is definitely verifiable, notable (subject of multiple reliable sources: Ban the smoko? No way, gasp diehard smokers, Abbott says smoko has had its day (The Age), S is for Smoko (ABC)) and widely used in Australia and New Zealand. It's also expandable so it's not just a dicdef. --Canley 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've expanded and rewritten the article, and added heaps of references, so hopefully that can pull this one out of the fire. I don't blame the original nominator, the original article ("Latin: Smokeus Breakus") was dreadful. --Canley 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, page is now looking sweet as. Only got one question for you now, did you re-write it during your smoko break?! Mathmo Talk 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article has been well rescued. Nice work, all. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- well referenced article. - Longhair\talk 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements implemented. Concerns brought up  in the nomination have been addressed.  -- Black Falcon 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm apparently coming into the conversation after the article was improved. But based on its current state I'm ok with keeping it. Dugwiki 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep redirection to cigarette clearly shows that someone doesn't know, even non-smokers take smokos in Australia... Unfortunate proof that AfD leads to improvement of articles (but not all articles).Garrie 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - both a common term and part of popular culture in both Australia and New Zealand. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on current state (and a credit to the rewriters) - the original looked terrible. As Garrie noted, it's become a cultural term even at times divorced from its original meaning. (Smokeus Breakus? :D) Orderinchaos78 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well done for those who improved the article. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I added this debate to list of Australia-related deletions, I was very undecided. It is great now. Well done, folks. --Bduke 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Smoko Is an intergral part of the Australian Culture. 210.11.34.9 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I very much agree that the original article was a mess. But being Australian, I can personally vouch for the Notability and importance of Smoko. Needs to be wiki'd imho. The Pace 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for making the article all that it could be guys being the nominator for this page I would like to redeem myself by saying that I was not the person who wrote the "Smokeus Breakius" thing that was some silly anonymous, but again the article looks great thanks guys. Eyenomad 9:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow, what a change since the nom. Nice work. John Vandenberg 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and commonly used slang term for a ciggarette break. Used in the media. --Candy-Panda 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please it is important to australian culture no need for erasure of this yuckfoo 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Proof once again that an australian article which has been thrown an afd can be improved with v and n shining out as always SatuSuro 04:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now a good article. Smoko is definitely an old Aussie institution and deserves a wiki page. Zamphuor 10:05, 17 February 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.