Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whacker


 * 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 - Yomangani talk 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whacker
Firefighter neologism, unsourced except for Urban Dictionary and one business (see talk page). NawlinWiki 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st Response from author:I added more links. Why don't you call your local fire department and ask them for a defitition before you come to the conclusion that this does not exist.  Thanks. thejax
 * Reply The additional links are helpful. I'd still feel better if you had a reliable source (like a newspaper article) that specifically discussed or defined what a "whacker" is.  That said, it's your job, as the article creator, to make sure that the article is backed by verifiable sources.  It's not other editors' responsibility to "call their local fire department" to verify an article.  Finally, the article is no longer tagged for speedy deletion, so there's no need to repost the hangon tag.  AFD discussions normally run for five days.  If there are reputable news sources, that should be enough time to find them. NawlinWiki 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd Response from author:Though I know it is my responsibility to show factual information, it does not give you the right to say its not factual just because you are ignorant on the subject of volunteer emergency services. If you don't know anything about this subject and refuse to contact anyone to see if its factual, then why would you tag the page for speedy deletion.  That is like me tagging your John Anderson page because I have no idea who he is.  I don't know anything about sports so i should just ASSUME what you say is false?  No, I'm not going to do that.  Why?  Because unlike some people, not saying you, I do not refute information that I am not aware of.  But hey, thats me.  Don't you think I have a point.  If I were you I would be like, "yeah, he has a point.  I think I will also take the initiative to find out if this is correct because I jumped to conclusions without all the information". At least thats what i would do. thejax
 * Again, verifiability is key. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability; personal communication is not considered a reliable source. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if this is for real, it's still an obscure occupational slang term and without sources, there's no evidence it needs an article of its own. (On a side note, 99.9 of this article would have to be removed even if the article isn't deleted, because it's atrociously written and completely POV and OR from start to finish.) wikipediatrix 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable, and extremely POV. Unless a source can be cited (and the entire article rewritten). Wavy G 02:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I placed the original speedy-delete tag on the article (which was removed without comment by the author).  I suppose that tagging this as nonsense was a stretch, but the POV nature of it, its obscurity, the in-joke feel it has, all led me to that conclusion.  I then received a message from thejax on my talk page questioning my courage and calling me ignorant.  Such comments certainly did not induce me to change my opinion.  This simply does not read as an encyclopaedia article, as has been stated above, no matter what said author thinks. ---Charles 19:38, 12 October 2006 (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.