- 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 no consensus. A Train talk 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Milkshake Duck
- Milkshake Duck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor online term that has only been in use for a week or so. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here, I think it might be better suited for Wiktionary with a stripped down definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TussilagoFanfara ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No reason for a article on this very recent word. Busterbeam ( talk) 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Actually, it's been around for at least a year, only in June of this year did it become more commonplace. There definitely is some WP:NEO concern here, I agree, but I think that an existing term that got latched onto due to recent events avoids those issues. There also may be a merge target too for this. -- MASEM ( t) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be considered even a term pre-June 2017, only a tweet joke. The article falsely cites a source, it doesn't say it was used then, only that it was applied to past events. The Oxford blog article (mentioned, but not cited in the aricle) about the word is skeptical at best about it. TussilagoFanfara ( talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict × 2) Transwiki and make it a wiktionary redirect: This is why Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – I see some good coverage on this meme. The E3 controversy has been linked to this meme by Kotaku and Inverse as well. The New Republic mentioned its use by the Oxford English Dictionary, and then there is this Observer article. I think it is likely to stay in public consciousness and I think it is notable. ~ Mable ( chat) 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTNEO, & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME - GretLomborg ( talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Most of the deletes are essentially versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rules and guidelines about Wikipedia is NOTTHIS or NOTTHAT are all very good rules of thumb that work in most cases, but they are not blanket prohibitions. They are all trumped by the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on all topics that are well-sourced and of significant notability, and there are sufficient high-profile sources to meet that bar here. So in this case all your guidelines are belong to us. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - As creator of the article, it was notable when the article started and has only grown in prominence. WIRED has used it in prose inline [1] with the assumption readers understand what it means. Oxford dictionary has it (literally and figuratively) on their "radar." [2]. The argument WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't hold water - the article talks about the phenomenon, its origins and its longevity in popular culture. All of these things a dictionary entry would not cover, but an encyclopedia does. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:38, 19 July 2017 (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.
- 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 no consensus. A Train talk 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Milkshake Duck
- Milkshake Duck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor online term that has only been in use for a week or so. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here, I think it might be better suited for Wiktionary with a stripped down definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TussilagoFanfara ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No reason for a article on this very recent word. Busterbeam ( talk) 17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Actually, it's been around for at least a year, only in June of this year did it become more commonplace. There definitely is some WP:NEO concern here, I agree, but I think that an existing term that got latched onto due to recent events avoids those issues. There also may be a merge target too for this. -- MASEM ( t) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be considered even a term pre-June 2017, only a tweet joke. The article falsely cites a source, it doesn't say it was used then, only that it was applied to past events. The Oxford blog article (mentioned, but not cited in the aricle) about the word is skeptical at best about it. TussilagoFanfara ( talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict × 2) Transwiki and make it a wiktionary redirect: This is why Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – I see some good coverage on this meme. The E3 controversy has been linked to this meme by Kotaku and Inverse as well. The New Republic mentioned its use by the Oxford English Dictionary, and then there is this Observer article. I think it is likely to stay in public consciousness and I think it is notable. ~ Mable ( chat) 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTNEO, & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME - GretLomborg ( talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Most of the deletes are essentially versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rules and guidelines about Wikipedia is NOTTHIS or NOTTHAT are all very good rules of thumb that work in most cases, but they are not blanket prohibitions. They are all trumped by the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on all topics that are well-sourced and of significant notability, and there are sufficient high-profile sources to meet that bar here. So in this case all your guidelines are belong to us. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - As creator of the article, it was notable when the article started and has only grown in prominence. WIRED has used it in prose inline [1] with the assumption readers understand what it means. Oxford dictionary has it (literally and figuratively) on their "radar." [2]. The argument WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't hold water - the article talks about the phenomenon, its origins and its longevity in popular culture. All of these things a dictionary entry would not cover, but an encyclopedia does. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:38, 19 July 2017 (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.