Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microphone gaffe
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 was keep. MBisanz talk 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Microphone gaffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This term is never really used to refer to an independent concept. The article just gives the trivial definition that a "Microphone gaffe" is a gaffe at a microphone, and them follows to an unnecyclopedic list of funny events. It belongs to a blog, not an encyclopedia. Damiens.rf 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Independent concept is absent from reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable, encyclopaedic concept. Article isn't the greatest, mostly composed of a list, but effectively "start" class. A microphone gaff is certainly not a dependent concept, dependent of what? WilyD 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean it is nothing more than one would expect from the junction of these two words (what is not the case of "toilet humor", for instance). Nobody talks about the concept of "Microphone gaffe". This article is doomed to be an unnencyclopedic list following one or two paragraphs of original research.
- Delete - WP:DICDEF followed by indiscriminate examples.--Boffob (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a term that is certainly used in the mainstream media. [1] and [2] and [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseeker4 (talk • contribs)
- Delete. No different to "cock up", "balls up", "blond moment" or any other conjunction of two words. Just a dictionary definition. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well, at least it's not profane. the term itself. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It may be that a term other than "microphone gaffe" would be more appropriate, but the concept (the accidental dissemination to the public of what a person intended to say in private) is notable. The article is well-sourced, something that we look for in Wikipedia articles. As the cited news stories show, it is noteworthy -- sometimes front page news-- when a prominent individual is "being himself". George W. Bush, when running for president in 2000, generally did not describe a person as an "asshole" in speeches, debates, interviews, etc., so it's not surprising that it made the news when it was caught on tape. In an ideal world, people wouldn't consider someone's poor choice of words to be notable... but we don't live in an ideal world. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Notable media phenomenon. The genre itself is notable, as are the examples. DGG (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Rename if terminology is problematic. move to "Open-mic gaffe" probly. the thing is real. let's name it properly. I'm not too sure about deleting a buncha content that clearly describes a phenomenon that is used in very high stakes mass communications contexts. sure, sometimes these examples are tabloidy, but when it comes to very powerful elected officials and thier campaign surrogates, this is a technique our leaders use to talk to us when they need the guise of supposed privacy. hehe. those guys are so clever. and jesse jackson was one of the best when he helped/hurt the prez-elect. see ya. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microphone_gaffe&diff=233143985&oldid=230922388, for a little explanation of relevance, tho maybe not all the content in this diff should be in the article, but -I'm sayin learn abou twhat the thing is. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a notable phenomenon and discussing a notable phenomenon requires inclusion of relevant examples. All the examples mentioned are well-sourced and made by public figures. - Mgm|(talk) 18:58, 16 November 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.