Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity
either a hoax or OR. Not verifiable elsewhere Tonywalton | Talk 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept, I suppose, but zero Google hits on various combinations of Tompkinson, incongruity, and so on, and none on the "pop culture theorists" cited (there are Benjamin Grangers, but I doubt whether either the one getting married in 1773 or the diarist of 1887 qualify). Tonywalton [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|15px]] | Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it not the "Ben Granger" who writes for Spike Magazine? link title (This unsigned edit by 62.6.139.11)
 * could be - I see the article has now been updated to refer to "Ben", rather than "Benjamin" Granger. Still no apparent sign of the Tompkinson Unit, though. Tonywalton [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|15px]] | Talk 13:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I read about this before. Believe it had to do with Memes. [[memes:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme] There was some more "technical" depth before. (This unsigned edit by 195.92.67.67)

I remember reading about this some years ago in a Manchester-based fanzine. Ben Granger is a rising star in the field of pop culture theorism. Don't know who this Simon Telford fellow is though. (This unsigned edit by StephCarter)

Some guy said it to me at a club night in Manchester a couple of years ago. The DJ was playing a different style of music to what was normally played there(he was playing house music at a breakbeat club night). The guy said something along the lines of "I can't believe what this guy's playing. He's off the f*****g Tomp!" When I asked him to explain what he was talking about he said "You know, off the Tompkinson", and then preceded to tell me that his mate read about this theory of a measurement of culture clash based on a comparison of how much of an outsider the priest from Ballykissangel was. He seemed surprised that I hadn't heard of it since he knew a lot of people who used it for all sorts of situations. (This unsigned edit by 80.176.80.17) 80.176.80.17 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What "some guy" in a club said his mate had read somewhere is hardly verifiable, though. Sounds more like an urban legend if anything.
 * And could contributors please sign their edits by putting ~ at the end (which is converted to a username or IP address and the date and time the edit was made). Thanks. Tonywalton [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|15px]] | Talk 12:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As per one of the earlier posts I recall reading an article on this issue in a magazine while I lived in Manchester. It was a few years ago, so my memory is a little hazy, but I think it the magazine was called 'sub' (or it was at least something extremely similar). I can't confirm that the whole entry is consistent with the original article (for example I don't recall muslim/wider environment refs) but i'm pretty sure it is at least consistent with the general thrust of the article (in terms of the drama/ comedy tradeoff w.r.t. ballykissangel). Rather than delete the whole entry, would it not be preferable, if necessary, to just tidy it up a little? 62.253.64.15 00:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As can be seen above Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity was nominated for deletion on August 23. There was only one vote cast, the nominator's, even though there was a lot of comment. Had I closed it, it would have been as a "no consensus" keep since most of the comments seem to favor inclusion, but I didn't feel there was enough requests for me to do that either. I am therefore relisting this one for a second run. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a slightly controversal theory but i do dimly remember hearing it being explained and then excitedly discussed a couple of years ago at a house party. On the surface it may seem a slightly frivilous way to measure the cultural impact of something but does indeed capture the imagination ( for the Ballykissangel generation at least). Maybe it's a theory confined to the north West but i have witnessed it being used in normal conversation so it deserves to stay as an insightful page on this website. (LauraCameron, 31 August 2005).


 * Delete Take your pick: Not notable, pseudoscience, original research, unverifyable, patent nonsense --Lomedae 09:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OR or nonsense--TimPope 19:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR, unless author can provide external secondary sources. Sdedeo 19:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sdedeo Sliggy 22:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lomedae. MCB 05:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The article clearly isn’t science and, as it isn’t masquerading as such, cannot be described as pseudoscience.  And having been published in Sub Magazine in Manchester neither does it fall into the category of original research.  Given the timescales does it even fall under the rationale of neologism?  May be better described as logism?!  The writing style is fine and so it is difficult to describe it as nonsense.  And unverifyable!?!  At worst this article could be described as non-notable and possibly vain but this is rather subjective and it seems a shame to delete a perfectly good article for being too provincial.82.17.24.13 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment. Can you provide a reference for this article in Sub Magazine in Manchester, please? Sliggy 13:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * comment I'll see what I can do.82.17.24.13 21:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research, no references. Quale 17:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment Unfortunately unable to obtain a suitable reference for the cited publication within the given time frame.  Maybe the other users who commented previously could help.  Failing that I suppose you will have to rely on anecdotal evidence.82.17.24.13 22:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for looking, a pity nothing concrete turned up. Sliggy 09:56, September 6, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.