Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weet-weet


 * 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   redirect to weet weet.  MBisanz  talk 00:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Weet-weet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unneccesary disambig page. I think the page is referring to the bird call of the birds in the disambig. Vacation nine 23:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done a little searching and I have amended the dab. "weet-weet" is a bird sound and it is also a alternative name of a bird species (or perhaps more than one bird species). Snowman (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the editor who started the dab has not edited the Wiki for a few weeks. He has had notification of this deletion discussion on his talk page and I hope that he has chance to comment here. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to weet weet, per WP:DABRELATED Delete per WP:GNG and common sense. There are no inbound non-hatnote article space links. If there are sourced refs to this birdsong, then I guess it could be kept. But AFAIK (and I'm not an ornithologist) this is a generic term used by laypersons. I've added the WP:BIRDS project tag, but am not sure whether any article alerts are set up, so am notifiying via the Project talk page too. -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see the logic of saying that there are no inbound articles space links to this dab, since, a dab page, which has had all the links disambiguated, would not be expected to have any inbound articles (ie nothing in "what links here"). I have found RS for two meaning of weet-weet that can be found on the Wiki, as well as meanings that are not yet found on the Wiki. It seems common sense to me to keep the dab page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean about the incoming dab links but still thought it might have some, if valid. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This dab now has one "what links here" link from Weet weet, because a link to the dab "weet-weet" is in the signpost header there to assist readers. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you have changed your mind, but I do not follow your logic again. I have looked at WP:DABRELATED and I do not see anything there that would tend to support your point of view that "weet-weet" should be a redirect. If "weet-weet" was a redirect to "weet weet" (the throwing game), then people looking for "weet-weet" for the bird or bird calls will be disappointed. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Common Chaffinch does contain the phrase "weet-weet" as an alternative name for the bird and the line in the article that says this is supported with four in-line references. This on-line dictionary says that weet-weet is a common European sandpiper, but I am not sure if it is a RS for the Wiki. Definitions are also found in the on-line OED, which is a reliable source, and the Wiktionary has an entry for weet-weet, which is based on the 1913 Chambers dictionary. The OED entry for weet-weet includes; "An imitation of the cry of certain birds, esp. the sandpiper and chaffinch. Also "n. as the name for this cry." Also; "Used as a name for the sandpiper". Also; an Australasian toy. The OED gives several supporting references including "1862 C. A. Johns Brit. Birds 625 Weet-weet, the Common Sandpiper." On my system a google web-search reported about 94,000 results in 0.36 seconds for "weet-weet", I have only checked a few of them, but it seems that the phrase "weet-weet" is widely used.  I think that the dab should be kept. Snowman (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets look at WP:GNG:
 * "Significant coverage": A quick google search yields no coverage at all besides occasional non-notable dictionary sources. Vacation nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reliable": Not reliable. Dictionaries often have differing definitions and usually don't qualify as sources.  Vacation nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is bizarre implying that the OED is not a reliable sourse. The OED is a dictionary which is a very reliable source for the wiki. It even has its own template for making it easier to write citations; see Template:OED Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sources": No sources at all are given in the article. The disambig page is not neccesary as it does not refer to any other pages, rather the individual bird pages. Vacation nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you have not seen the references in the articles. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Independent of the subject": Since there are no sources this is N/A. Vacation nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you have not seen the in-line references in the articles. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously it qualifies under these WP:GNG criteria for deletion. Vacation nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I spotted that it was originally a redirect to Chaffinch. If we're saying that it's a notable term (i.e. a sourced imitation of the cry of certain birds) then should it really be a dab page? -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you changed your mind? The dab is now completely different from when the deletion discussion was started. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look and a think. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me that you are having some doubts and that you have not made up your mind at the present time. Snowman (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now amended my initial comments above. -- Trevj (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:GNG is the wrong test for a DAB. As far as I can see WP:GNG is about the notability for articles and not for DABS. Of course, dabs can list items that only refer to a small portion of an article. I note that the page WP:GNG has "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." prominent near the top of the page, so clearly it does not apply to this DAB. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not, see WP:DABNOT: "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary." Vacation nine 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From near the top of Disambiguation; "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Surely, week week needs disambiguation. The dab list guides readers quickly to the correct articles, which is exactly what dabs are for. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm a British birder and I've never heard either of these terms. My Chamber Dictionary doesn't have these meanings, there are no RS sources, and a quick Google shows no WP:GNG  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is odd the Wiktionary has an entry based on the 1913 Chambers Dictionary. I have done a little searching and I have found some RS sources (see above). Try . You can use a UK library card number to log-on to the on-line OED. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have substantially amended the dab and it now lists three items for disambiguation. Snowman (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the improvements? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have not contributed to this discussion for about one week, I presume that you are not particularly interested in the progress this discussion nor improvements to the dab. I guess that your original comment is now out-of-data, since it must be based on an old version of the dab. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as it stands. Clearly between the attested children's game and the bird nickname, there is some room for confusion, which is harmless to dispel. bd2412  T 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I agree that this title should redirect to Weet-weet, with a hatnote there directing the reader to Common Chaffinch. Since there are only two actual links on the disambig page, this would appear to fall under WP:TWODABS. A user looking for the bird would be no more inconvenienced by being taken to the article on the game and seeing a hatnote there than they would be by being taken to a disambiguation page providing the exact same link. bd2412  T 15:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... weet-weet can be an old name for the Chaffinch and it call also be a call made by a number of bird species. The dab also has the signpost to Wiktionary. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and then move weet weet (the game) to weet-weet because that is its standard spelling. It is not the case that weet-weet is a name for the chaffinch or sandpiper.  As the OED says, it is an imitation of the bird's call.  That is no more an alternative name for the bird than woof woof is another name for dog.  Nor is it the name of the dog's call (that would be bark).  Spinning  Spark  02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you and I think that you seem to have got a number of things wrong. You might have missed that the OED says that weet-weet is a sandpiper. The OED has three entries for weet-weet: 1 - verb, 2 - noun, 3 - int and noun. Have you seen all three? The Australian government spell it as weet weet, so I presume that weet weet is the Australian spelling. I think that the Article "weet weet" is best left in Australian English. Also, for comparison see the dabs; "Woof", "Meow (disambiguation)" and "Quack (disambiguation)", and I note that these dabs have the animal sound disambiguated. Incidentally, the sound a dog makes is "woof" and not "woof woof". Snowman (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, the OED does have that entry, but I am still not convinced. Far be it from me to disagree with the OED, but I note that all their citations are from the 19th century.  Trawling through many pages of gbook hits, all the modern uses of the term in reliable sources seem to be imitative rather than nominative.  I support the hatnote at weet weet instead since it is still possible that a reader might try to look it up after reading a Victorian document about birds.  Spinning  Spark  17:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the question of the correct spelling for the Australian toy, this gbooks search shows an overwhelming preference for weet-weet. Australian government sites use both terms but possibly still with a bias for weet-weet.  All in all, I would say that the toy/game should have the weet-weet title on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME.  Spinning  Spark  17:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to weet weet with hatnote there to Common Chaffinch, per BD2412. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to weet weet and hatnote on Common Chaffinch per BD2412 and JHunterJ davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:37, 21 November 2012 (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.