Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedgie (4th nomination)

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 keep. Flowerparty^☀ 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgie

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Scouto2 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the third AfD discussion and this (the 2nd discussion) is not supposed to be modified. Does someone care to fix this? Cazort (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Cazort (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not a dictionary entry. Gigs (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is little more than a dictionary entry. Unless more can be made out of its frequent encounter as a form of bullying, or in some way tie it to the significance of its place in civilization, there's not much here that's worthy of keeping. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article would be better-supported as part of the "school pranks" article. There is already a section devoted to wedgies, therefore it would be a better thing to delete this article and use the information in the main "school pranks" article. Also, this article was in a poor state when I found it and cleaned it up. The article was little more than a glorified pop-culture section. Now the article is little more than a glorified dictionary entry. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a dictionary either. Note this statement on the "What Wikipedia is Not" page "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." --Scouto2 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Double-voting struck. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies. I thought that I had to actually vote in the proceedings rather than just nominate it. --Scouto2 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NAD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! Gigs (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Gigs (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is already a bit of encyclopedic content here, in the connections to bullying. This search: [1] shows that there is frequent discussion of wedgies in the scholarly literature. Although some of the coverage is trivial, not all of it is; there's discussion/debate of whether a wedgie constitutes sexual harassment. This source: [2] says it does, other sources in the first search seem to dispute that. Here's a thesis that even gives a definition of the term wedgie, after and before using it in a few places: [3] (annoyingly, not searchable by text, it's a scanned image). Also, the existing source on "wedgie-proof" underwear is a perfectly legit article. Funny? Of course. Encyclopedic? I think so--it's verifiable, written about the topic directly, and it's far more than just a definition. Perhaps editors who object to the inclusion of such humour on wikipedia need to be given a wedgie. Cazort (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Used in everyday speech, in media. Part of american culture. Keep in my humble opinion. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is beyond being a mere dictionary entry (talks about variants, reasons for performing, prevalence in pop culture, etc.).Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets WP:N. Now stop it! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this article has notability, it does not need an entire article. All of the information about it is in the "School Pranks" article. Also, all of the variations of the wedgie in the article are entirely subjective: "Another type of wedgie is the yeasty, which is a wedgie done to a girl that causes a yeast infection." This article does not make Wikipedia look good at all, and serves even more to discredit Wikipedia. This article has, mind you, been nominated twice previously. Also, this article should at the very least be semi-protected to prevent people adding the own variants that they just came up with, such as the "Ranch Slide-a wedgie where the victim is givin a wedgie until he orgasms", and the Popular Culture section was ten times longer than this article, consisting of mainly "X gives Y a wedgie in Z show.--Scouto2 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, School Pranks contains more information than the main Wedgies article itself. Therefore, it may be a better course of action to merge this and the section in School Pranks. Can I have some input on that?--Scouto2 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see serious problems with the School pranks page--it is highly arbitrary, and relies heavily on one source. The names of the pranks are rather arbitrary, many go by multiple names and it's problematic to include them with a single name in a list like that. A wedgie stands out among these pranks as something that is notable in its own right, and has an agreed upon name--most of the other pranks in the list are not as notable. I would not support a merge into a page with as many problems as the school pranks page. Cazort (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article School Pranks seems to no longer exist, so why should one prank get special attention? Ronark (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Why does a wedgie deserve an entire article? The article is just a magnet for bogus vandalism and variants. Here are a couple excerpts from the page: "I have wedgie" "A 'yeastie' is a wedgie that gives a girl a yeast infection." If it is notable that there are wedgie-proof underwear, then they deserve their own article. A Wiktionary page is more suitable for the subject. If the School Pranks article was deleted, then why not delete this? This article is poorly written. Also, if an article has already been nominated for deletion three times before, then there must be a serious problem. --Scouto2 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting vandalism is grounds for page semiprotection--and should not factor in in any way in deletion discussions. Otherwise, we would be deleting a lot of featured articles. I don't think vandalism should even "tip the scales" in a marginal case, because that's giving the vandals too much power. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:N. Just because it may attract vandelism is no rational for deleting it. If that were the case, George W. Bush would have been deleted long ago. The article is a lot better than it was since an industrious editor has clean much of the garbage out. In any case, the Wedgie is a significant part of pop culture, there's a lot of literature about it as well. Certainly the article could use some expansion and sourcing, but that doesn't justify deleting it, especially since it meets grounds for inclusion.--Lendorien (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You see this throughout popular culture, although I don't know of anyone ever doing it in real life. Dream Focus 09:03, 29 June 2009 (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.