Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleek (Involuntary spit)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleek (Involuntary spit)

I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [1] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Notable thing hitting the back of my neck in third period civics, circa 1993. Youngamerican 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Switching to regular keep per rewrite. Youngamerican 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. There is no reason to transwiki, as the definition is already noted on Wikitionary. SYCTHOS ^talk 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sycthos. Ruby 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming it is worthy of placement there, it should be in Wikitionary Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that this article is a how-to of the procedure, not solely a dictionary definition. Brabblebrex 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How to gleek? Could you explain the importance of this action? SYCTHOS^talk 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just a strange/amusing thing to do with your body. Think of it as a "real-life easter egg" Brabblebrex 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that clarification. Wikipedia is not a how-to, explicitly. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~neologism, unless sources can be cited. Tonywalton | Talk 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)~~ as transwikkied, per SYCTHOS. Tonywalton | Talk 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including a how-to and a dictionary. Ikkyu2 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per per Scythos. Eusebeus 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Worthy of a short article (maybe), though it should be renamed as Gleeking as the action is not necessarily involuntary (as the article itself indicates). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- If you think it should be done as such, go ahead. brabblebrex 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changing my vote to Strong keep, as the article has been renamed and significantly cleaned up. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or maybe cross-wiki to Wiktionary). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki is another option. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 09:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real word for a real action, but it has no potential for expansion. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:15, Jan. 28, 2006
Keep This is not a dicdeff, it is a brief scientific entry. It doesn't logically fit on another page, so it's own page seems fine. The meaning is dic deff. The fact that it can be done is an interesting biological fact. It could be expanded a bit with links or descriptions of the glands or nerves or whatever that make this work.Obina 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, just not enough content there yet to rise above a dicdef. Allow a better article to be created in the future, but delete for now. Turnstep 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The future is here! Keep the new and improved version. Turnstep 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this fine little stub. Could do with attention from someone with a grasp of the biology, but that's no reason to delete. Lupin|talk|popups 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwikied. *drew 16:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since (a) this is not the only definition of gleeking I've seen and (b) none of the definitions I've seen constitutes a reliable source and (c) it's a dictdef anyway. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, nonsense: how can there be a how-to for an "involuntary" action? —rodii 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been renamed as Gleeking and indicates that gleeking may be voluntary or involutary. It is thus no longer vulnerable to this (formerly legitimate) objection. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noted in the Wiktionary Compu te r Jo e 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleanup but it does cite several sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bemused keep: This is one of those articles that make me blink a couple times. It's kind of silly, could very well be an extremely subtle joke, but it does have a spiffy graphic and big words. It also has pretty decent references and citations, and I suppose it's indisputable that it describes something that does actually happen. If culture has stepped up to fill a linguistic void which science has neglected, shouldn't this entry have a kind of common law right to exist? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. It seems to be real, and has been around since at least 1988, with several citations. As long as we can write more than a dicdef on the topic (and a scientific explanation with diagram seems to fit that) it's worth keeping. Night Gyr 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article has changed significantly since the nomination. Many of the original objections no longer apply. Night Gyr 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is now far beyond a dictionary definition. Ardric47 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; although I'd generally heard gleek used in a slightly different sense than in the article.--ragesoss 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian Lamo. I can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mccready 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable. Ifnord 19:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already redirected to Gleeking, which was definitely the right thing to do, IMHO.--M@rēino 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the content was moved to Gleeking (an article that did not previously exist). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2006 (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.