Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTSHTF


 * 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. As consensus points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to reliable published sources.

There is no consensus here to move the article to Wikitionary. However, that does not mean that an entry couldn't be started on Wikitionary independant to this. -  Daniel Bryant  10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WTSHTF

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO and FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Wikipedia is not for idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day.-- TBC Φ  talk?  22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WTSHTF is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is part of the public lexicon.  I just did a Google search on WTSHTF and got 6,490 entries.  Then I searched on SHTF.  It had 88,600 entries! Thus, these acronyms do NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day."  Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0651 PST, 12 march, 2007  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
 * Do any of those hits qualify as a reliable source? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "reliable source" factor is not what is at issue here, Arichnad! The meaning of this acronym is undisputable, so sourcing would only be an issue if the entry delved into the origin of the acronym. I cited the sheer number of Google hits on WTSHTF andSHTF  to illustrate the POPULARITY of the acronym. If those numbers don't constitute common use, then you had better go through the Wiktionary on safari and start posting PRODs on several hundred *existing* wiki acronym entries for acronyms that are downright obscure, compared to WTSHTF and SHTF.
 * I still vote to RETAIN this entry. - Jeff Trasel, 1557 PST, 12 March, 2007
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In other words, just because other pages should be deleted, doesn't mean that this page should exist.  If you find thousands of acronyms that should be deleted, then that's irrelevant to whether this page meets the notability guidelines or if the page could be adequately sourced.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Move to wiktionary at best. - grubber 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not even wiktionary material. HagenUK 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the replies to this vote but I stick to my Delete. If these acronyms are important to survivalists, they can be merged into their articles as a table or similar. HagenUK 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, the key issue here is notability. I brought up the Google count as a useful data point in that regard. Clearly, those of you that have chimed in with "delete" votes would not have done so if you believed that the acronym was indeed notable. In some circles, such as survivalism and libertarian politics, WTSHTF and SHTF are widely known and regularly used without a second thought. Both the root phrases and their respective acronyms also seem to be more popular with certain age groups.  I mean absolutely no disrespect by this--and please don't take it the wrong way--I'm merely making statement of fact.  In essence, people that went to college in different decades are immersed in a distinctly different mix of popular culture icons, cliches, pet phrases, slang and so forth.  This doesn't mean that any particular decade was/is better or worse than any other decade--it  just means that the collective experience for each decade was different.  As a data point, I went to college in the  early 1980s.  That was shortly after the comedy movie "Airplane" was released. (In 1980.) One of the most memorable jokes in the film included the phrase "shit hit the fan." Pardon my rambling, but I'm trying to relate--in a polite way--that there are generational differences that color perceptions and evalutaion of terms vis-a-vis  relevance, popularity, and notability. Perhaps some other wiki editors would like to chime in on the notability of SHTF and WTSHTF, so that we can reach a wider consensus.  I look forward to hearing from you, and will accept the consensus view with all due humility. I appreciate your input, folks!
 * - Jeff Trasel, 1938 PST, 12 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).


 * I vote to retain. These are common terms used in groups to include firefighters, LE, other emergency response and by disaster planners. I saw the phrase used post 9/11 and Katrina to describe devastation and overwhelming loss. Deleting this because individual(s) are unfamiliar with its use appears narrow and arrogant.  I consider this project a tool to expand knowledge and common understanding, not to limit it.  — EJayB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I vote to retain, its a WELL KNOWN acronym all across the USA, Europe, Australia and S. America. were about information and knowledge here aren't we? dont be PC. wally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.25.86 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2007
 * Comment: Trasel and the recent two contributors may want to read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We need actual sources for an encyclopedic article.  If the article creator means this entry to be no more than a dictionary definition, as his comments above (regarding usage being the issue, not sources) seem to indicate, then this entry belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. —Carolfrog 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote to retain, as First Responder and Cert. Emergency Planner, the term is used quite frequently TheRanger223 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)TheRanger223
 * Do you know of any reliable sources that back that up? Just because it is used quite frequently in your sphere doesn't mean that it has reliable sources necessary to stay on Wikipedia.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary. Dddstone 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RETAIN. Arichnad had asked for verifiable sources. A quick search yielded the following references to SHTF, TSHTF, and WTSHTF.  The following illustrate that WTSHTF (and the truncated versions TSHTF and SHTF) do NOT fall in the category of just "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" :  The Free Dictionary Wiktionary [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689962/posts The 2006 FreeRepublic Lexicon] Glossary of Internet shorthand Target Rich Environment -- The Target Rich Lexicon The Internet Acronym Server Greesnspun.com--HELP - please explain abreviations used The Firing Line Acronym List The High Road Useful Acronym List Platon.sk Comprehensive list of abbreviations and acronyms The SurvivalBlog Glossary SurvivalMonkey.com Acronym list The Oil Drum (a Peak Oil site) The Internet Slang Dictionary The Tomax 7 Internet Chat Abbreviations Acronym Finder Search Glock Talk--Here Is What The Acronyms Stand For Glossary of Terms for Combat Pistol Shooters Y2K Forum Glossary FluWiki Forum--Abbreviations GIM Popular Culture acronym list The preceding references were found just scratching the surface. Again, I think that the entry deserves retention.  --Jeff Trasel 0911 PST, 13 Mar 07
 * Commnet None of those seem to be reliable sources, nor does this give any reason why this should be here and not at Wiktionary. JoshuaZ 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote to retain, as ex Aust Army, the term was and is used quite frequently along with snafu and fubar etc which can be found in "Use and similar words in the U.S. Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU im surprised this isnt there. TILGA — Tilga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Absolutely no secondary sources describing this as a notable term.  Primary sources that mention the term do not provide anything but basic information.  --Mus Musculus 04:24, 15 March 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.