Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum bogodynamics

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 keep (no consensus). 5 delete, 3 keep and I'm not entirely sure if the nominator still wants this deleted (see reply to Billposer further down in the discussion.) Regarding WP:NFT, this joke seems to be in use more than referring to that page would imply, and with the references in the article I am not convinced this is original research either. Unsure if this thing is truly notable however, but I cannot see any consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum bogodynamics[edit]

Delete Not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion Sounds to me like a university prank Damiancorrigan 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jargon-file-cruft, from back in the day. -- GWO
Keep This and other aspects of bogosity reflect an important facet of hacker culture. Yes, its humorous, but the article itself is no prank. It might be an improvement, though for it to be merged or linked up with other material on hacker culture.Bill 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the article makes no reference to hacker culture. All that talk about speaking in seminars has nothing to do with hacking, the article puts more emphasis on student parlance than hacking. We used to do "bagsy not" at university, but it has no place here. If it is hackers culture, that needs to be explained. Damiancorrigan 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand better (and I see you have put in a hacker reference) then I am more willing for it to stay. I've removed the rubbish about seminars - that was the most awful part. Damiancorrigan 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --Deville (Talk) 20:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New version is good and term is notable. JoshuaZ 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Damiancorrigan, do you want the new version to stay? If so, this should be speedy kept as a withdrawn afd. --Tango 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is out of my hands now. Votes are coming for 'delete', so I'd like to let the debate run. I still think it is naff, regardless of whether some subculture of hackers use it amongst themselves. But it is 'better' now than before. Damiancorrigan 21:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has potential, desperately needs sources, smacks of OR at the moment. —porg es_(talk) 22:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'd claim WP:NFT doesn't apply here because this is an example of a T that was MUISOD that has gained some following, viz., Jargon File entry. This does warrant a micro-merge/concise addition to Fictional elements, isotopes and atomic particles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR vio. --DV8 2XL 19:48, 30 April 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.