Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF)


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable Neologism. Also, the references are not reliable sources. Evb-wiki (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: NN Neologism. Also an inaccurate one since Palin didn't win (she actually hurt McCain).  TJ   Spyke   19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NOT. NoVomit (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The notability of the term 'VPLIF' can be established by seeing that it gets over 150,000 Google hits. It's impact on popular culture is also discussed in the article and there is room for further expansion. References are now okay and links to articles in two newspapers: the Seattle Weekly and the Minnesota Independent have been added within the last 24hrs. Keeping this article will also give other editors a chance to expand it and add more references. In total there are now 16 references plus external links, which is pretty good work for a new article. Give it a chance to expand! Bletchley (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardly any reliable sources listed in refs. Just more Palin nonsense dreamed up by bored journalists. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment: Why are two US mainstream newspapers regarded as 'unreliable'? Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is not the lack of reliability of the newspapres, but the triviality of the coverage. A feature article discussing the term, its usages, its impact, that is to say, it significance would be persuasive towards keep. A number of such would establish notability.  Dloh  cierekim  17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are a handful of sources, but none of them meet the requirements of WP:RS As for notability, I don't think its there yet either.Dman727 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment: Why is 150,000 Google hits not notable?Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability for this neologism as well as common sense. MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, but Google hits do not notability make.  Information about Sarah Palin being called "VPILF" can easily be put into her article, the only place it would marginally belong. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 20:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google hits are very important for notability as we are talking about an internet phenomenon here. The article is not like a dictionary; on the contrary it discusses impact on popular culture like an encyclopedia does. Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Along with VPILF being incorporated into the Palin article, it could also be included in the MILF page. Jonesy (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The LOL on this meme ran out on November 5.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you limit Google, using the advanced option, to hits in the last month you get >3000. That is hardly a dying meme. Google Trends shows the meme has spread from the US into Canada, UK, and Germany. It is a global phenomenon folks. Get with the times.Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I remind you to be civil during any discussion of an AfD. If she won, this would still be notable, but she didn't, and it joins the lockbox and Dukakis in the tank in the campaign meme hall of shame. As for your Google search, in the end, it only cranks out 488 unique hits when you go through to the end. I never use the estimate in G-hit searches, only the actual number.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for reminding me not to beat my wife. If we follow your logic of throwing out Dukakis etc. then I think you should consider taking out an AfD on the whole article: U.S. President Slogans. Why is that article there? Those are all defunct slogans. It's because people now and in 3000 AD need to be able to look these things up when they are doing research on popular culture. Bletchley (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you limit your google search to news (where you might actually find reliable sources), you get zero g-hits - Zilch, nada, nil, none. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The News server is running behind...it will catch up if you give it another month. The fact is there are two reliable newspaper items cited in the wiki article (Seattle Weekly and Minnesota Independent). One of them does pop up on Google News, if you use the Google Trends version of that engine. Also >150,000 normal Google hits indicates an internet phenomenon that you can't ignore...that's more hits that most Grade B Hollywood stars on the Wikipedia! Get with the internet age man.Bletchley (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google News usually skims every RSS feed every hour and is almost always accurate. It's funny that this term should be exploding because of 'year-end' lists which list the new terms that broke out like 'bailout' and this word/initialization isn't among them at all. As for your point that we should delete the presidential slogan article; Those are official campaign slogans. You can source them. McCain/Palin didn't put this one out there.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not being American, I'd never heard it before, but it does strike me as doubtful that it will catch on in the long term.  In general, popular phrases don't lend themselves to wikipedia articles. Deb (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the contrary they lend themselves perfectly. The reader wants to know it's origins, it's popular references and cultural impact. All things that have a cultural impact have a limited lifetime. But you have to remember that people in 3000 AD will be reading Wikipedia and will be using it to understand the origins of things in the past and why they had the impact they once did. Think big and think long term when you talk Wikipedia. That's what Jimbo is all about. Bletchley (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You really think a 31st century researcher is going to care or wonder about the concept of the MILF? I don't even think about anything beyond 2525 at this point.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You betcha. Scholars had to struggle hard to figure out some of the scatological neologisms used by Shakespeare. We can't be 100% sure they even got it right as there was no Wikipedia to help us out. Remember that today is the historical zoo for tomorrow's people. They are gawking. Bletchley (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable neologism, lacking in significant usage and lacking in sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It is a flash in the pan which cannot inherit sufficient notability from Sarah Palin for its own article. It is not even significant enough for a mention in Sarah Palin. Though not failing the criteria set for in WP:BLP, it is close to violating the spirit of BLP. I hesitate to dignify this by calling it a meme, as it is not self perpetuating. Perhaps the article is but a part of viral marketing from the associated website. Struck with apologies. creator is established user.   Dloh  cierekim  17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bletchley suggested that I "check out" this article. After overcoming my initial horror at the title, I looked down at the ref's and external links. Most are from blogs and YouTube. One external link is a  a memorabilia purchase site. The Daily Weekly should not be discounted out-of -hand, as it appears to be a news outlet in which the staff writers post an article to which readers respond. It's about the VPILF website and it's creator. It is too trivial to assert more than that the phrase has been used and that the web page exists. Zazzle is a retailer site for "memorabilia". Crackle requires flashplayer. Comedy.com is trivial coverage for the subject, but deals more with Sarah Palin. Seattle Weekly again deals with the "man behind" the VPILF website. It is too trivial to use to justify an article about him,let alone this phrase.  Minnesota independent article uses the term, but again in referring to Palin. Huffington Post is a review of the aforementioned website. The above links would support the notion that the subject has some usage, but are in depth only enough to say that some people use the phrase and that someone has sought to capitalize on its connection to Palin. The "viral marketing" angle is mentioned in more than one.  Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source.
 * a web search for the phrase in question garners 3 hits, including Urban Dictionary. Nothing in GoogleBooks or GoogleNews for the phrase. While Google count is not an accurate gauge of notability, lack of Ghits in this instance shows it is not  a notable phrase. VPILF does not garner 65,000 unique Google hits. it only gets about 700. Google count has been deprecated for some time, because one must be extremely cautious about applying it. I do not find any reference not connected with the late presidential campaign and the Republican candidates. There is a GoogleBook hit for Verilog Programming Language Interface, so the initials do have a usage quite unrelated to the subject at hand. In fact, there is a number of unrelated Google Book hits. This paucity of hits, with the limited usage, shows it is not significantly notable through common usage to have an article, and will likely fade away into triviality. In that it holds a public figure up to derision and ridicule, it serves no purpose than to keep alive a bit of unseemliness contrary to human dignity.Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-- It could be noted that Bletchley was the creator of the article. Dloh  cierekim  17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: So tell me folks, without Wikipedia how on Earth are scholars in 3000 AD gonna figure out what VPILF was all about? Think of the confused frenzy you are dooming your descendants to.Bletchley (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they can just review all those reliable sources archived out there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have to wonder whether or not Bletchley is taking the piss here. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. I have it on good authority the world will end on December 21, 2012. Dloh  cierekim  03:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails [[WP:N, besides which Palin was never Vice President. Edison (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons listed in nom. The number of Google hits is not the end all be all of notability.  The quality of the coverage also counts. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (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.