Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bricemanning

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. (aeropagitica) 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricemanning

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Neologism with extremely narrow scope (per User:Ultimus). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: only five unique ghits. --David Mestel^(Talk) 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• "extremely narrow scope" -- Incorrect. Verbal diarrhea is extremely prevalent on the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.146.230 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a recommendation for what to do with this article or just an analysis? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Recommendation: please reconsider reason for deletion. Bricemanning is a reality on most internet forums; "extremely narrow scope" is not sufficient reason for deletion. No action should be taken without sufficient/correct reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.146.230 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The task of proving notability rests on the shoulders of the article creator, not the rest of Wikipedia. We already have many policies in place to combat the addition of non-notable content; WP:WINAD seems appropriate for this one. I have to also say I have serious doubts about "Bricemanning" being popularly used on "most" Internet forums. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• The task of proving notability rests on every member of Wikipedia. It is also the duty of every member to thoroughly research before dismissing. Especially in this case where the term may seem like an undercurrent in web culture. Although only partly recognized, this may be an important cultural term/phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.146.230 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the AFD process is supposed to do. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course. But let's do proper research; not a quick search and then dismissal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.146.230 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparent original research, almost a classic example of WP:NEO in action. I am unable to find any evidence of this term being used in a notable or independent publication. The arguments in favor of keeping it seem to forget that Wikipedia is neither a personal soapbox for social change nor a dictionary. We don't make change happen, we report the changes that are already happening with as neutral a tone as possible, if that makes sense. Where the primary purpose of an article is to "get the word out," something unencyclopedic is probably going on. Just my two cents. Regards, Luna Santin 09:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To anon: it is not our job to prove that this term is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is yours, since you are making the claim. All you have to do is provide a single reliable source per WP:RS and I promise to vote for a keep. The problem is that you almost surely can't, and so this is nothing more than a non-notable, non-verifiable neologism that's only used by a few users on a few forums ("narrow scope" per myself before). (|-- UlTiMuS 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The following article contains the penumbra of "Bricemanning": http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/language/v080/80.2tomasello.pdf Tomasello, Michael "Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain: The Subcortical Bases of Speech, Syntax, and Thought (review)" Language - Volume 80, Number 2, June 2004, pp. 325-327 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.146.230 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-29 10:27:51 (UTC)
  • Citing as sources articles that have nothing to do with Bricemannings only undermines your argument. Uncle G 12:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No offense, but "contains the penumbra" sounds like a really fancy way of saying "does not contain." Please be more specific? Luna Santin 15:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some discussion forum users have made up a meaning for the username of a discussion forum user that they don't like, and come to Wikipedia to document it. Wikipedia is not for things made up on a discussion forum one day. The article cites no sources and is quite clearly original research. The source given above has no relation whatsoever to the subject of this article (albeit that the book that it reviews may make an interesting addition to language acquisition). The place for this is the authors' own web pages, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 12:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all similar recommendations above; IMHO, this is a borderline speedy A6 as a mock-serious attack on one particular poster at a forum. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have an article for spam. This seems to be a forum-specific term, even if that's not what it means. Verbal diarrhea may be common, but that's what it's usually called. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above and per nom. Non-notable, non-verifiable original research about a forum specific neologism. Wikipedia is neither a status symbol nor a springboard into common language. --Wafulz 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ox of Bole. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 09:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A must keep submission. Is from DVXuser, one of the largest digital video forums on the internet, and the meaning has no REAL defenition 71.75.178.105 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Huh? Please read the reasons for deletion cited above and try to comment on those if your argument is to keep this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments. —tregoweth (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, dvxuser is a site with over 18,000 members. It's traffic ranking is also among the top 20,000 of all internet websites. The term, as stated above, is not an attack on a person. The term refers to an activity that is present on all internet forums. It is named after a person that personifies its definition. There are words that were named after people, and appear on wikipedia.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.81.23 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: Regardless of to what the term refers, or if other eponyms exist on Wikipedia, simply because the site may be notable does not mean every word used on its pages is notable by association. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:21, 2 September 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.