Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bum Fuck, Egypt

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, unless and until we have articles on Braindead, Mo and Murder you for the price of a coffe, New York. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Fuck, Egypt[edit]

Nonsense page, fails under WP:NEO, is neither notable, nor encyclopedia. --Haemo 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, someone just deleted my justification for keeping this page. Anyway, the term may be a neologism (though it's a least 25 years old), but it's certainly not "nonsense". I've already linked it into the Placeholder name page. Is this really that much different than, say, "Podunk"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Is that the same place as Bumblefuck, Ohio? ~ trialsanderrors 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Bum Fuck" may mean a particular place, but it not a common term. This is even more true of the term Bum Fuck, Egypt, which appears to have absolutely no reference whatsoever. The author of the article is not even sure where the slang originates, nor does the article provide any references to support their contention. By contrast, the term "podunk" cite repeated usage, and has extensive historical merit. None of this is displayed by Bum Fuck, Egypt, and I am strongly inclined to believe that it is simply a total neologism. Delete. --Haemo 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (I'm the nominator, anyways!)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwiki to Wiktionary as a colloquial dicdef. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition has it right, but it's going to be very hard to document this. Google will just turn up anything where people refer to BFE, but what I understand of the definition is pretty much echoed in the entry. Certainly wiktionary has room for fairly well-known (albeit obscene) colloquialisms. Not enough to keep here - it is, after all, a dicdef. Vote changed as such. --Dennisthe2 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Wikipedia it is impossible to document, as there are no sources at all. For Wiktionary, it appears to be actually very easy. I found the phrase in several books, so supplying quotations in order to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria and to demonstrate meaning should be easy and uncontroversial. Uncle G 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"per nom"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unless some very good and verifiable reliable sources can be found, this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Gwernol 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources. Searching, although it is possible to find people using these three words in sequence, I can find no sources that actually properly document the notion that the article claims they denote. It's possible for a Wikipedia editor to deduce documentation for the notion by analysing how people use this phrase, but that would be original research, which is forbidden here. This shouldn't have an article until it is properly documented outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term appears in the first two dictionaries of slang I looked at, with essentially the same meaning as I witnessed it being used 25 years ago: [1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neither of these indicate that this is not a neologism. Openly editable online dictionaries are not reputable sources, nor are they what is meant by "dictionary" in WP:NEO. Furthermore, even if we accept this, it is apparent that this article does not qualify under WP:NOT#DICT for slang terms, as it contains nothing other than a guide to the term mentioned. --Haemo 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And when one finds oneself citing Urban Dictionary as a source, alarm bells should go off immediately. Uncle G 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense and/or attack page Bucketsofg 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, this is not attack, nor nonsense for that matter. I've heard this term (and similar terms; "East Buttfuck," etc.) to describe exactly what the article states, (ex: "I had to go all the way to Buttfuck Egypt to find a gas station....") but there is nothing notable or encyclopedic about it. Unless some reliable sources are given, it should be deleted. Wavy G 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia's not a slang dictionary. Twinxor t 05:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a stub about a neologism/slang term. Not even worthy of a transwiki, in my opinion. Like Twixnor says, this is not a slang dictionary. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense article. Not notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either nonsense or a non-notable term. JIP | Talk 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis useds to be a Redirected, before a newby sided to make it into an article. Just revert back to the Redirected.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 12:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect should definitely not be restored. It is patently offensive and there is no supporting evidence (least of all in the article) to suggest that this term is used to refer to this particular region of Illinois Gwernol 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect was to a real place. Do you have any evidence at all that this is an alternative name for that real place? If not, what is your justification for a redirect? Uncle G 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but SOMEONE's using this term since it pulls in 21 hits in Google Books [3], 24 in Google Blogs [4], and as part of a Creative Writing MFA thesis at West Virginia University [5]. It even gets 16 hits on Google Map, though the exact location appears to be unsettled. [6] --Calton | Talk 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the things that the search locates. Additionally: Arguments that a word or phrase is in use are what Wiktionary deals in. This is Wikipedia. We write encyclopaedia articles on subjects, here. For those, we require sources that are about the subject denoted by the article title, and thus our arguments deal in the existence of sources. That a word or phrase exists does not make it an encyclopaedia article subject, and doesn't magically supply sources telling us about Bum Fuck Egypt — where it is, what it is, and so forth. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And a work of fiction is not a source. Uncle G 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the change being discussed. I've copied the interesting to detail to Placeholder_name, and I have no particular objection to this one being deleted. I feel strongly, however, that it should not be a redirect to Little Egypt, which is what caught my eye in the first place. That's simply not an appropriate direct association (perhaps there is something etymological going on there, but I've never heard of it). For what it's worth, I can respect the filter you're trying to apply here, but I think that a considerable part of Wikipedia would not pass it. 69.149.223.52 13:29, 4 January 2007 (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.