Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space plumber

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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space plumber[edit]

(View log) I speedily deleted this, but doing so under CSD G1 was incorrect. It is not nonsense and even has a source on Reuters. This article seems to have had its impetus in the breakdown of the toilet aboard the International Space Station. It is simply a not-yet concept. Can't call it a neologism, as it attests from the 1960's with 24 Google News hits some behind paywalls, not all relevant. However, the term does not have sufficient usage for an encyclopedia article, perhaps it has enough for a DICDEF. Also, one can create a vast number of words by sticking "space" in front of a given word. I believe Heinlein gave us the word "spacejack" for one who does construction work in Space. Which is what the astronauts building the ISS are trying to do. Lamentably, we do not have sufficient specialization in space jobs to have different names, and creating articles for each possible term would be a collection of indiscriminate information. For now, astronaut will have to serve. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. As far as I can tell this is some kind of joke among journalists. WillOakland (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax it seems, given the very slight usage; however, it's got little hope to be more than a one sentence dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, if you look at the Google news links, you will see it is not a hoax. Cheers, and happy editing Dloh cierekim 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them. Most of the articles (actually prints of the same article) are about David Scott. What was the context? WillOakland (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing attests from 1963, 1965, 1971. These articles are not about the current misadventure. I don't think it's a hoax. Cheers Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving me the same link twice doesn't answer my question. My recommendation stands. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the abstracts of the articles from 1963, 1965? A hoax? No. Those links show the term has in this meaning been used as far back as 1963. Maybe in 100 years, (don't hold your breath) we'll have such an article. An idea whose time has not come. Dloh cierekim 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see it having any notability after this shuttle mission and there's no way the article could ever be much more than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroso (talk • contribs)
Delete Notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one sentance, One possible fact article thats topic is a locale version of an existing occupation and article Prom3th3an (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ecoleetage. Has bureaucracy gone too far when you have to discuss the merits on an article about space plumbers? ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody actually has this as an occupation. Rather, some astronauts have occasionally been called upon to do some plumbing in space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per all the above ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP isn't a bad dictionary or repository of sparingly used media-buzzwords (i.e. non-notable cruft). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I write a Wikinews story about "joke-o-protologists", who come up with funny terms when they hear weird stuff in news, does that get an article? My mind boggles with all these exhilarating opportunities. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, i think that would be better served as a cat or a list. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:59, 2 June 2008 (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.