Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brent

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 of the debate was Delete, discounting possible socks and meats. Deathphoenix 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Brent

• Nonsense. At best as the article says it's a "minor cult craze" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I have been looking for this for a while and finally "The Brent" has been explained to me! Thank you for the explanation!! MONTHS of my life have been wasted in Libraries looking in encyclopaedia’s for the explanation of this phrase!! NOW I FINALLY HAVE ONE!!! Thank you!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!! User:Dainger 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.233.236 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2006.
• Delete. Not really notable. Arundhati bakshi 12:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't help thinking it's a hoax. Gtabary 12:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I dunno - I'm a fan of 'the office' and I've noticed a lot of people adopting this pose for "comedy effect" - numerous times on a recent round the world trip. I certainly don't think it's a hoax. It's a new page so maybe we should leave it to see where it goes - I'm sure the entry for flash mob probably started something like this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.129.163 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 February 2006.
• Delete If anything to negate one of the two keep votes by Mr 80.47.233.236 Ruby 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is there a subsection of made up in school one day that covers made up while on a gap year? MLA 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per sockpuppetry by 80.47.233.236 (talk • contribs). -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reconsidering vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Vote reconsidered... but still a delete as notability not established. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, but a comment that the way sock puppets vote isn't a criteria for deletion. Mark the votes of sock puppets, but recall that their multiple votes won't be considered as stronger consensus. --Karnesky 16:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously I was being a bit facetious with my phrasing, but I think it is legitimate to take into account, when notability is one of the criteria that brings an article to AfD, whether there's evidence that points to an attempt to manufacture an appearance of notability. In this case that evidence turned out to be mistaken, but I think it's a legitimate consideration. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification only I am user 80.169.129.163 - I want to point out that I made one of the Keep votes - they are not both by user 80.47.233.236 as alleged. I will get a sign in asap. I'm new to this so didn't know the protocol. I was only weighing in cos I had genuinely seen a lot of people doing this (to MLA - I was not claiming to have made it up on my gap year - I saw it happening on several occasions during a (3 month) holiday. I have not myself done one (yet!)) . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.129.163 (talk • 

Thanks for noticing that. I was having a rotten time about then and didn't see the two different numbers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Little verifiable evidence of this "minor cult craze" having much following. We might want to check the copyright status of the photo too. Capitalistroadster 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Copyright in the screenshot is probably owned by the BBC (this was an in-house BBC production). I'm a UK-qualified IP lawyer and I'd say the inclusion was probably justified under UK "fair dealing" principles. I believe Wikipedia runs on the US "fair use" doctrine which is significantly more relaxed and so the inclusion is more likely to be OK. In any event, copyright infringement should only realy be a reason for deletion if the page infringes copyright as a whole, not (for example) just because a single element may be problematic. The picture can be removed easily. --TMMABPTY 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. (Kind of reminds me of Chac Mool...) --Kinu ^t/_c 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. I have seen this done at office christmas parties and now have done it myself. As for notability not being established, perhaps the inclusion of this has to wait until it gets in the press before being published on Wiki? I note there is also a page on the Macarena. Should that be deleted as being trivial? As far as neologisms are concerned, surely a neologism is only such until it becomes an accepted or widely spread part of the common language? (Manager-Speak, Buzzwords, helicopter-view, etc.) I also thought the comments on an AfD discussion were supposed to be non-inflammatory. "Delete this nonsense" from Blngyen? With all due respect, Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies? (Who watches the watchers?)Shema2 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) This is Shema2 (talk • contribs)'s only edit.
• Keep Bizarre. I didn't realise it was actually this widespread. A lot of my friends do this too, and one of them even persuaded Anthony from Big Brother to do one when he entered the house last year! That was fairly notable I'd say.Geordie Boy 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC) This is Geordie Boy (talk • contribs)'s only edit.
• Keep A little Anglocentric perhaps but notable in my book and clearly cannot be described as a "hoax". My little brother came back from university last Christmas quite obsessed with "Brenting", as he calls it. Unless "sometimes done by students" is a criterion for deletion...--TMMABPTY 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) At the time of this vote, TMMABPTY (talk • contribs) had seven edits, all to AfDs.
• Keep To nip the thinly-veilled newbie bullying in the bud before it happens - yes, I have only made a few edits too. But when I have managed to get out now and again in the past couple of years I have DEFINITELY noticed this behaviour going on.--Gianniv45 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC) This vote represents Gianniv45 (talk • contribs)'s ninth and tenth edits.
  • Sorry you perceive it as "thinly-veiled newbie bullying" going on, but Wikipedia perceives this well-established practice of noting "votes" from very new users as its protection against "sockpuppets", "meatpuppets", and other attempts to make the AfD reflect the views and perhaps the ulterior motives of a small group of newcomers, rather than the experience and judgement of established Wikipedians. You may think this is "unfair", but I suggest to you that that is an illusion caused by the fact that Wikipedia offers you uncommon latitude in editing its pages. Would you expect that any other non-wiki website would give you a major voice in determining its affairs simply for showing up and making seven, eight, nine, contributions before saying "My voice must be counted!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this non-notworthy neologism. Also discount sock puppet/meat puppet votes. Ifnord 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obli (Talk)^? 19:20, 23 February 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.