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.
Per
WP:NAD. Neologism that was used for a short time and got some coverage. Most of this is about Internet celebrities. The Oxford dictionary quote should tell you everything about this - "did not consider usage of the neologism to be sufficiently long-lived or widespread to warrant inclusion in their dictionaries". The fact that the word was used in a podcast is deemed relevant to this article should also tell you a lot about the notability of the term.
RoseCherry64 (
talk)
01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep – Passes
WP:GNG and has received a fair amount of ongoing coverage. See some source examples below; more sources exist in addition to these examples. Furthermore, it was Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year and is included in the
Macquarie Dictionary. North America100006:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Obvious keep - You do realize that there were more than 160,000 page views to this page in the past year, with some significant spikes. Check the activity graph to see it is no fringe term and that people are actively going to Wikipedia to read about this.
[1]. I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting. So you're not a fan of them, but how does BBC World Service coverage sound then? (
What is Milkshake Duck, BBC Wolrd Service, 17 Dec 2017) Look at the list of the references, which includes New York Times and ABC News, and you'll see this is very well covered. It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion when it clearly meets notability guidelines and has extensive reliable source coverage. --
Fuzheado |
Talk07:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting."
Someone briefly mentioning a term in one shouldn't be noted.
"It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion"
Exactly as
Northamerica1000 said. And you cited one specific guideline while ignoring the greater encyclopedic nature of the term. It's more than just a
WP:DICDEF - it's a phenomenon that is being explored in multiple reliable news outlets. --
Fuzheado |
Talk08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"greater encyclopedic nature" Most of the coverage is about some controversy related to Tim Soret, a minor video game developer who doesn't even have his own article. It mentions in passing Elon Musk's "pedo guy" comments which have been widely covered, with one reference. I cannot find a single other reference calling Elon Musk a "milkshake duck" in press.
RoseCherry64 (
talk)
08:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
Per
WP:NAD. Neologism that was used for a short time and got some coverage. Most of this is about Internet celebrities. The Oxford dictionary quote should tell you everything about this - "did not consider usage of the neologism to be sufficiently long-lived or widespread to warrant inclusion in their dictionaries". The fact that the word was used in a podcast is deemed relevant to this article should also tell you a lot about the notability of the term.
RoseCherry64 (
talk)
01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep – Passes
WP:GNG and has received a fair amount of ongoing coverage. See some source examples below; more sources exist in addition to these examples. Furthermore, it was Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year and is included in the
Macquarie Dictionary. North America100006:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Obvious keep - You do realize that there were more than 160,000 page views to this page in the past year, with some significant spikes. Check the activity graph to see it is no fringe term and that people are actively going to Wikipedia to read about this.
[1]. I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting. So you're not a fan of them, but how does BBC World Service coverage sound then? (
What is Milkshake Duck, BBC Wolrd Service, 17 Dec 2017) Look at the list of the references, which includes New York Times and ABC News, and you'll see this is very well covered. It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion when it clearly meets notability guidelines and has extensive reliable source coverage. --
Fuzheado |
Talk07:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting."
Someone briefly mentioning a term in one shouldn't be noted.
"It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion"
Exactly as
Northamerica1000 said. And you cited one specific guideline while ignoring the greater encyclopedic nature of the term. It's more than just a
WP:DICDEF - it's a phenomenon that is being explored in multiple reliable news outlets. --
Fuzheado |
Talk08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
"greater encyclopedic nature" Most of the coverage is about some controversy related to Tim Soret, a minor video game developer who doesn't even have his own article. It mentions in passing Elon Musk's "pedo guy" comments which have been widely covered, with one reference. I cannot find a single other reference calling Elon Musk a "milkshake duck" in press.
RoseCherry64 (
talk)
08:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
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.