Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whoo-ride
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DELETE. All "keep" votes are obviously by sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Google shows that the word is occasionally used, but I've failed to confirm that the meaning is what is stated in the article (or, indeed, that the phrase has any specific meaning). Ashenai (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The word is used, and the context is clear by the usage. You should be able to confirm the definition solely by the usage. I'm not sure if you follow football or not...it's fairly well-known. Frank Longo (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User "Frank Longo" does not exist. Comments by this person are really from 152.3.80.63. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I do exist. Thanks for trying though. Frank Longo 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User did not exist at the beginning of this vote (the history is quite clear); however, it's reasonable to assume that comments signed by him are his. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that there was no user account "Frank Longo," not that Frank Longo as a person doesn't exist. I see that you have since created an account. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I do exist. Thanks for trying though. Frank Longo 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User "Frank Longo" does not exist. Comments by this person are really from 152.3.80.63. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I could certainly be wrong. Could you please provide a specific, independent source? --Ashenai (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what the heck happened to your comment timestamp there? If you edited it, well, please don't do that. If the Wiki added it, um, we have a bug? --Ashenai (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've never had to discuss anything here before so I wasn't sure of the format. In terms of specific independent sources, I could try to find the specific episodes/games where Stuart Scott and John Madden have said it...there hasn't been like an article in the NY Times about the whoo-ride phenomenon as of yet, if that's what you mean...all the people I know who watch American football know its definition, and since it's been on primetime broadcasts on network TV and cable, I guess I assumed everyone knew what it meant. *shrug* --Frank Longo (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I watch a lot of American football and have never heard this. Neologism of no widespread significance to the sport. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't take this the wrong way, but if Stuart Scott and John Madden know what it means, I'd think that'd be more relevant than your standard Joe Q. Footballfan. --Frank Longo (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point. However, I get a good bit of Madden and Scott both, and I've still not heard it. This is not a "bam!" or a "booya!", respectively, which is about what I'd expect for a notable commentary catchphrase. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but seeing as how other posters here have heard of it, without a definition on wikipedia, fewer people will know what it means. I thought that's why wikipedia had the slang that it does on here, in order to let people know when they hear it (including/especially NFL/ESPN fans) what exactly it entails. Frank Longo 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll all be more impressed when other posters includes any established Wikipedian, rather than first-time editors who forge signatures or vandalize other votes. Additionally, WP:ISNOT a dictionary. UrbanDictionary is the home of arbitrary slang, Wikipedia covers slang that has made enough of a cultural penetration that encyclopedic content can be written about it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but seeing as how other posters here have heard of it, without a definition on wikipedia, fewer people will know what it means. I thought that's why wikipedia had the slang that it does on here, in order to let people know when they hear it (including/especially NFL/ESPN fans) what exactly it entails. Frank Longo 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point. However, I get a good bit of Madden and Scott both, and I've still not heard it. This is not a "bam!" or a "booya!", respectively, which is about what I'd expect for a notable commentary catchphrase. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't take this the wrong way, but if Stuart Scott and John Madden know what it means, I'd think that'd be more relevant than your standard Joe Q. Footballfan. --Frank Longo (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dicdef. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete . This is not the actual meaning of the slang term whoo-ride. Nice attempt though. Joe Montana (talk) comment actually made by Califas101 (talk · contribs), user's first edit — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep . whats the problem here? it's a term used by John "hand warmer" Madden. End of discussion. like everything on this site is right. if "booya" was popularized by cosmo kramer then i originated the cotton gin. urmomsbox comment actually posted by 67.86.64.222 (talk · contribs) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC). User later removed original sig to make this appear as my vote. 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Please stop forging signatures. Your input is far more likely to be respected if you do not intentionally misrepresent yourself. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I have edited Longo's original entry. I have improved the quality, removed the incorrect information, and formatted correctly. Please forgive Frank, he means well but he got in over his head. Please see the revisions and approve for inclusion. cereffusion
- keep I don't understand the grievance here. Meaning and usage are very clear. Better articulation of the disagreement would be helpful. zenothegreat
- Note: Likely sockpuppet of Cereffusion. This is the Zenothegreat's first edit. Note that both posts are extremely similar in format (examples: ''' keep'''; [[(username)]]; double spaces between sentences). --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that if it is zenothegreat's first edit, he probably doesn't know the proper formatting, much like I didn't know it when I first joined and I still learn new things about today. We can't all be computer nerds. Frank Longo 02:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the accounts are two separate people, you would be correct, but the formatting similarities between the two make me think it's the same person. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dawg, they are two different people I have seen them on the sports boards I frequent son. --Randy_Jackson
- Assuming the accounts are two separate people, you would be correct, but the formatting similarities between the two make me think it's the same person. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that if it is zenothegreat's first edit, he probably doesn't know the proper formatting, much like I didn't know it when I first joined and I still learn new things about today. We can't all be computer nerds. Frank Longo 02:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Likely sockpuppet of Cereffusion. This is the Zenothegreat's first edit. Note that both posts are extremely similar in format (examples: ''' keep'''; [[(username)]]; double spaces between sentences). --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The last two comments are valid. I misunderstood a bit of the details, but knew the gist. Cereffusion helped clarify and formulate. I hope everyone now sees the term's merit for inclusion. Frank Longo
- Delete as neologism. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but labeling all terms you've not heard as "neologism" seems to rule out what one would think Wikipedia is. Sure, it's not urbandictionary, yet the wiki editors have failed to slay "bling bling" as "neologism" and are worried about a term now circulating in the broadcast booths of ABC and Fox? Come on now. And the attempted witch-hunting of those that have found this term by random and wish to validate it is a bit out of touch. -benine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.211.31 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 October 2005:
- Exactly the point for why it should stay. Well put. Frank Longo 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- explain then, howcheng, how "bling-bling" is either stable or undiffused in current cultural use and how it became an entry in wikipedia. Porous editing on the wikimasters part and inconsistent use of the "neologism" application. I think you should re-examine your standards.-benine (post work IP here::) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.248.63 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bling Bling can be regarded as a stable neologism because it has widespread acceptance and recognition among much of the American population. Ask people if they've heard of the term and most people will say yes. If you look through the history of that page, you'll see it was sent to VfD shortly after its creation, but it survived the process, so it had enough consensus among Wikipedia editors that it was worth keeping (unfortunately, that was before we archived the discussions). Note who's voting "delete" here -- all but one are experienced Wikipedia editors, which should demonstrate that those who are familiar with the standards of what gets kept in the encyclopedia don't think "whoo-ride" worth an entry yet. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From my significant amount of personal experience, if someone and their pals fixes the vote by voting non-explanation-supported, any old crap can be kept, including articles on each character from the movie Glitter and seperate articles about Mah-ri-yah Carey's version of "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town". As such, AfD isn't the best example of Wikipedia rules at work. These guys are actually providing some explanations. I
therefore abstain from voting.vote a strong keep. --FuriousFreddy 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From my significant amount of personal experience, if someone and their pals fixes the vote by voting non-explanation-supported, any old crap can be kept, including articles on each character from the movie Glitter and seperate articles about Mah-ri-yah Carey's version of "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town". As such, AfD isn't the best example of Wikipedia rules at work. These guys are actually providing some explanations. I
- Bling Bling can be regarded as a stable neologism because it has widespread acceptance and recognition among much of the American population. Ask people if they've heard of the term and most people will say yes. If you look through the history of that page, you'll see it was sent to VfD shortly after its creation, but it survived the process, so it had enough consensus among Wikipedia editors that it was worth keeping (unfortunately, that was before we archived the discussions). Note who's voting "delete" here -- all but one are experienced Wikipedia editors, which should demonstrate that those who are familiar with the standards of what gets kept in the encyclopedia don't think "whoo-ride" worth an entry yet. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP -I've heard Whoo-ride for a long time now, and never knew what it meant. You know why you think you never heard it? It's because YOU never knew what it meant, therefore never thought twice about it. See how many times you hear it in the next few months. -IronF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.220.89 (talk • contribs)
- Whoo-Ride is going to Whoo-Ride - Darko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.220.89 (talk • contribs) same IP as above
- raise your hand if you have been laid recently or have kissed a girl before - The Stache — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.64.222 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC), same as "urmomsbox", above[reply]
- KEEP- You mean there are people who DON'T want to educate others on "Whoo-ride"? It's one of the most misused phrases I've ever heard.-I Heart Sex Boats User's first and only edit — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. I'm not sure about this John Madden claim. And even if it is true, a lot of nonsense comes out of that man's mouth that doesn't necessarily deserve it's own entry. But "whoo-ride" is pretty widespread among internet sports discussion, and an entry explaining it seems logical and useful. Colonelk 09:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I am new and I am really into correcting faceless people online because well, i really get off on it. I am also EXTREMELY into collecting stamps and am currently constructing the worlds largest ball of lint(eat my dust Raymond Henderson!) hopefully my mother will let me keep it in my room. So what does a anal-retentive wikipedia editor get paid these days? BigEffaSmackinHeffas (User's first and only edit) --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't get paid anything. They just care about the quality and integrity of this resource. Colonelk 05:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them, at least. --FuriousFreddy 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't get paid anything. They just care about the quality and integrity of this resource. Colonelk 05:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Dawg, many internet dorks like myself have used this and continue to use this word. Just because some of you may have never heard of it does not mean it should not be included on Wik, I'm just being honest dawg. Dude, it is a term that started at one message board and has spread to others because most people correspond on more than on message board. Dawg, this is my first entry to Wik and it will not be my last. Randy_Jackson October 22, 2005
- Comment We've got an entire category of internet slang terms here, many of which I have never heard before in my entire life. If and when those are deleted, you can make off with this one as well. --FuriousFreddy 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IMHO "whoo-ride" doesn't qualify as Internet slang; it may have its origins on the Internet, but it's a football term, not an Internet term. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reguardless of whether it gets washed with the reds or the blue, it's just as obscure (I'd argue less so) than anything in that Internet slang category. It should stay. --FuriousFreddy 17:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IMHO "whoo-ride" doesn't qualify as Internet slang; it may have its origins on the Internet, but it's a football term, not an Internet term. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If the entry about "the endless november" Usenet phenomenon gets to stay, then I'll be damned if I'm not going to vote a hearty KEEP for "whoo-ride". There exist many subjects on wikipedia that are esoteric, arcane, or seemingly silly. Having them in a collected place is valuable. Anyway, "whoo-ride" apparently isn't just a slang term, but a phenomenon similar to a Clutch Underdog Victory, and such and such. Jeff Reardon comes to mind, and that kicker for the new england Patriots. They both showed the "right stuff" at the right place at the right time when everyone dismissed them as having the "wrong stuff" at the wrong place at the wrong time. I rest my case. KEEP. (But I don't condone the name-fraud or whatever's been going on here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.232.167 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 October 2005 (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.