Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spigning

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. WP:SNOW v/r - T P 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spigning[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncertain of notability, although not a WP:HOAX for certain, it's an article that may be within WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Thaxspeed9005 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:CB. I help run SABRE and have never heard of this - also the name of the society is wrong. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the "Botched Roadsigns" thread on SABRE mentioned in the article is an unreliable source. It's user generated content that can be created by anyone. While there are reliable sources hosted on SABRE, all of them are verbatim transcripts from the MOT, DfT or other government organisation, and that is the actual source. The other two sources are also unrealiable, as they fail to establish any notability (or, indeed, factual evidence) about anything else written in the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No grounds to delete this. --Julaime6606 (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the creator of this article may have a WP:COI, or the entire thing is a WP:HOAX. But it's certainly of dubious notability, to be honest. --Tedrogers86 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Internet Meme. There's really no good reason for this to have an article to itself. Many internet memes don't and this hasn't really distinguished itself enough notability-wise to where it's on the same league as say, lolcats. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - The Bus Uncle has a page about a transport-based Internet meme, this one is notable too, same as My Little Pony:_Friendship is Magic. --KFRTanya (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)— KFRTanya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I'll be a little more direct now and declare my own WP:COI. I develop some of the software for the SABRE forums, as cross referenced in the article, and have some responsibility for overseeing what goes on there. I have never heard of the concept of "spigning" thus described - and indeed, a complete search for the term on the SABRE forums here yields no results other than a report on this AfD article. Furthermore, I should declare that from the administrator logs, I can see that a user with similar diction and manner to Julaime6606 was banned from the SABRE forums on Sun Oct 02, 2011, and will be happy to supply the IP addresses used in posting to the administrators here if they need to verify it is the same person. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to alert KFRTanya that MLPFIM has an article because it is a television show and The Bus Uncle has been covered in multiple papers and other sources. It's not like they got an article just for existing. Also, be aware that article deletions are not decided on the number of votes but a consensus. You need to be able to justify why spigning is notable enough for an article by providing proof of notability via wikipedia-esque sources, not by pointing out other memes that became notable enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete There's a limit to how much ghost chasing I'm willing to do on this, but there are no GNews hits, and most web hits seem to be for places claiming that there is a meme, rather than much evidence of the meme itself; a lot of them are irrelevant or in Italian, or are obvious typos of "spin" or "spine". A real internet meme would light up with examples;this one produces nothing. Everything points to a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. Far too many of the sources are just twitter feed links or user generated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bogus mythical "internet meme" with obvious involvement by strangely covert entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made-up nonsense, does not exist as a meme on the Internet or anywhere else. Pure Hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not bogus, it's a neologism and I didn't invent this. --Julaime6606 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see WP:NEO then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a made-up, neological hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism - per WP:NEO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CB. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not for the reasons above. It may not be madeup but rather a term that's obscure to the rest of us and known to a small group of people, and although the software does exist, it almost certainly shouldn't be in this article. To me, this seems like an article that's a "puff piece" praising the software, and using phony celebrity endorsement to give the appearance that it's reliably sourced. I did look it up on Google, and although there's few Ghits for such a thing, this certainly doesn't seem like patent nonsense, it's just in an inappropriate place. Whether this was written by an employee of the firm or a fan of the software (which doesn't matter anyhow), this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Not speedy delete-worthy, but for now it should be deleted, or at least moved offsite. It doesn't appear to be a spam campaign, more of an attempt to try and get free publicity for something, but it fails. My vote: delete. --Denyanode16 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2011 (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.