Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET

Add links
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. I'm putting an end to this nonsense. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NUGGET

[edit]

neolagism Geni 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete I believe that "nuggeting" should stay on this site as its information proves useful to my thesis which i have recently coompleted at university. I find that Nuggeting is much more interesting then the studies of Newton's Law and his good mate Kepler. DO NOT DELETE for the sake of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete i nuggeting is happening in every where i work for a builder and ive seen nuggeting going round on building sites this page should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.106.20 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete to the idiots who call it Un-encyclopedic. this very website defines an encyclopedia as: An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. A compendium of knowledge, basically, a compile of knowledge. Without this article, people will be left in the dark to the act of NUGGETING, just because it was done by a group of school students doesn't stop it from being educational, not matter how obscure the content. This must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is an excellent article and should not be deleted because this is really happening in schools today. Just because it isnt effecting you doesnt mean it isnt an important issue to the youth of today. They also deserve the right to publish their definitions so please do not delete this excellent article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.83.157 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Nuggets are an aspect of every day life for a school student. This needs to stay.
  • Delete, nonsense. Zocky 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed. --Intimidatedtalk 05:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is real (it's happened to me, in fact), but it is not encyclopedic. NatusRoma 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. PJM 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Zocky. Blackcap (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As i posted under discussion, this article is what wikipedia is all about. Nugget is a serious and common term in adolescent society. If users wanted and encyclopaedia which was restricted to terms and events found in britannica, they would go to britannica.com sparks_333 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is a legitimate article, nuggetting exists and i've encountered it. It is a truthful and good article, deleting this is unreasonable and wrong P.duffy 9:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete I totally disagree with the non-encyclopedic and nonsense comments, do not judge articles so harshly. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it is a false article. It is factual in my opinion and informative. It deserves to stay lynchical 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE just because you people are unaware doesnt mean it shouldnt be there, if u dont like its unencyclopaedianess then dont read it
  • Delete and hush the sockpuppets. If this article had any legitimacy it would come with links and citations. Durova 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Strong delete for persistent sockpuppetry. Durova 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --pgk(talk) 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This is an extremely common occurence in highschools throughout Australia (and quite possibly even the world). This site is all about informing individuals who are curious enough to find the definition of things they dont know. "nuggeting" is real, and hence deserves a proper defenition! User:Matt.Booth 10:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopaedic. Both this page and the article talk page are getting sock-puppeted and vandalised. --BillC 12:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. - Randwicked 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Everything needs a definition even if it’s the strangest term more the reason for it to be defined, therefore it is encyclopaedic and seeing that its popularity is increasing people should be made more aware of what it is.
  • Do not Delete Im sorry but the only sock puppeting and vandalising occurring is coming from those of you who wish to delete the article simply becuase you do not understand/know of the concept. Please do not act like children, the article is not nonsense but an actual term.
  • Do not Delete Only the people who don't want this page to be deleted have any valid reason. The claim that it is nonsense might just as well be said about God, but there's an article on Him. Herodotus never referenced anything and he's called the Father of History. This is a work based on living memory and does not therefore require references. Those who want to delete this page are contributing to the destruction of the memory of a cultural phenomenon. It's the ugly side of globalistion. Comparable to the loss of a little-spoken African language. What richness it may hold for historians of the future! Do not delete this page, vikings!
  • Do not Delete This is obviously a new slang term developing in 'adolescent society'. The secondary definition for nugget according to www.dictionary.com is: A small compact portion or unit. It is clear that an inverted case fits this description quite well. As the creator points out, wikipedia is not just your average conventional encyclopedia; Wikipedia is a site made by the people, for the people, which is perhaps the best system for an up-to-date reference. It is for these reasons that i feel the term should stand. I am also puzzled as to how the creator would go about collecting citations? picture evidence has been given, what other sources would be available?
User has 1 edit. - Randwicked 13:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rash of sock puppets defending this article only highlights its dubiousness. --Roisterer 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN pfctdayelise 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE if Graffiti has a large article and is not deleted then why can't NUGGET's have a article on wikipedia [nitrodavid] 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE "Nuggeting" is a term which dates back to the late 18th century. The imperial powers who colonised this nation used the term "Nuggeting" when they referred to the action of inversing somebodys sack. Nuggeting is genuine, informative and factual. It is an important aspect of Australian venacular. Moreover it is a common practice in Australian society. These reasons alone make the term "Nuggeting" encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE its a freaking work of art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE How many inside out objects must we show you people that it is a real term? Why delete it, the person who wrote this has put a lot of effort into it, although I agree is should have some things removed. --Bmw lurker 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't want to see nuggeted bags, they want newspaper articles, preferably from the Hearld or Telegraph, saying something along the lines of "Nuggeting Menace - John Howard Declares War On Nuggeting". They want speeches by well-known shrinks about nuggeting. They want to be able to confidently say "Hey, someone other than students from St Pats, someone a lot more important than these students, they're talking about nuggeting". It's one of Wikipedia's core principles - Wikipedia:Verifiability. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE you guys are calling it sockpuppeting but infact you just can't face the fact that more people want this page not deleted then deleted [nitrodavid] 5:59 , 21 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is the suspicion that most of these people are just drummed up to ramraid this article into Wikipedia. It's a justifiable position to hold, considering people contributing here come from all over this rock. I could write up a load of complete shit, and then get ten mates together and tell them to furiously defend my shit when it comes up for deletion. These people are not interested in Wikipedia, they're just doing me a favour, for the wrong reasons. Because people try to pull stuff like this, it is a general guideline to discount the opinions of those with a minimum of edits to Wikipedia, especially when the come in screaming complete bullshit like some here are. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic. And a comment: would people please stop SHOUTING their votes, and however emotional you may feel, keep your arguments (for or against) coherent. Oh yes, I know its too late now, but the conventional term is "Keep", not "Do not delete". It would have made reading so much easier. Zunaid 09:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with all delete votes so far. I'm a schoolboy in Perth and I have never, ever come across the term. Ever. Ever. It is not sweeping the nation, let alone the world. Sockpuppets, silly arguments (age bias? ignorance = delete? What?) and so on don't help it. None of the 'do not delete' votes justify themselves through policy or even sense. Ultimately unverifiable and pointless; it amounts to either a definition or original research. If it is kept (God help us all) then it needs a huge rewrite, but I hope that won't happen. I assume those sock puppets will be discounted? Tolo 11:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is required by our verifiability policy that editors provide sources so that readers from outside of those areas can verify that what is asserted from firsthand experience is in fact the case and has been documented as being so. It is required by our no original research policy that editors provide sources so that it is demonstrable that the concept being described has already been through a process of fact checking and peer review and been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by people other than its creator(s). Wikipedia isn't for documenting new things. It isn't a publisher of first instance for human knowledge that has never been recorded before. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

    If the editors who do not want this article deleted can cite sources demonstrating that multiple people who independent of the creator(s) of the concept have published works of their own about it, in the same manner as was done for the Walk of shame (AfD discussion), then that would be excellent.

    However, all that readers have right now is UrbanDictionary, which is in no way a reliable source (and, indeed, specifically espouses its purpose of being a repository for made up stuff), the unsupported word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, and the words of a load of drive-by editors who appear not to understand our policies or what it is to be an encyclopaedist. That is simply not enough.

    I've started you off. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be vaugley verifiable, but does not appear to be noteworthy. Meat/SockPuppet supported. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hordes of sockpuppets and meatpuppets don't make it better. --Pmetzger 15:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Now then... I must say, being a Year 11 student in the start of his HSC year, that I have been in school long enough to see hundreds of NUGGETS... Also, what is with the constant claiming that everyone that says "Do not Delete" is a 'sock puppet'? I know for a fact that they're all individual people who I know and interact with on a daily basis. I can recognise each of them with ease. (As people can do when they've known other people for six years...) Why all the hating on the NUGGET? I think it's because you're all a bunch of malicious conservative fools who feel as if anything you have never heard of must be destroyed... I must say, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge, and this article is to inform people of "NUGGETS" and that's exactly what it does.

M.A. Sato

    • "all individual people who you know and interact with" equals meatpuppets. Just because you've managed to convince lots of your friends in your high school to go and vote on Wikipedia doesn't mean the rest of us are going to regard all of them as independent votes.--Pmetzger 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, Wikipedia is a community that works on consensus. Consensus is made up from the opinions of the people who actually contribute to Wikipedia. If just any random guy pops in here and writes "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" as his only edit, and then leaves forever, it's not contributing to Wikipedia, and it's not from a member of our community. It's just a random, off-the-wall comment. On the other hand, if someone who has been here for a few days or weeks, preferably months, and has made valid edits to many articles, writes "Delete. This is a neologism that is not widespread enough." then it's a much more valued opinion. If we just counted all votes and didn't pay attention to who they are by, we'd be no better than some poor webpage's guestbook with 200 pages full of "HOT 18-YEAR-OLD TEENS LIVE!!!" written over and over again.
    • About the terminology: A sock puppet is an account used by a person who already has an account, to create the impression that he's two people. A meat puppet is an account used by a different person, but only because someone asked him to get an account and vote in a deletion debate. — JIP | Talk 21:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its widespread in Sydney, but I personally have no way to prove it that doesn't blow WP:NOR to all hells. Thanks for your efforts Uncle G, but I'm actually starting to think that the best thing to do would be to perform a mercy delete and page protect, and recreate the article in the future when we have the documentation to prove this. All we have at the moment is the word of one ex-Normo boy and a whole bunch of St Pats kids with nothing better to do until term ends, and that just isn't enough. Saberwyn 20:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, non encyclopedic Agnte 23:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its bullshit. Fahrenheit Royale 23:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not bullshit. What is bullshit is the childish behaviour and aggression coming from wikipedia users who maintain their autocratic sense of self superiority under the delusion of their own false intellect! Grow up! Your responses have been more hostile, aggrivated and issue causing than any of the supporting posts. Take a long hard look at yourselves and how you spend your time. -- Unsigned comment by 210.215.116.19 2005-11-22 03:34:55
  • Delete as it is a neologism. This phenomena is not encyclopedic; it has not established any notability in high school culture. As other fads before it, it too shall pass. --mdd4696 05:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I have never edited a single article here on Wikipedia... (Although I probably could fix up a few of the sub par ones which are in my areas of interest...) But I'm not just some "Random Person" who was "recruited to save NUGGETS". I love this site dearly and visit it often and there has been no recruiting what-so-ever. All of our comments are our own separate opinion. I believe that this article belongs here as it contains factual information on a current occurence. I know there are people who want this article deleted and that's ok... But you can't go claiming something "Bullshit" when there are actual occurences. "NUGGETING" is similar to "Kancho" in that it is an activity that occurs in the schoolyard... However NUGGETTING isn't quite as... gross... as Kancho. I'm not trying to cause any trouble here, I am simply telling the truth. If you people can't accept that, then I don't care... Flame me all you want, but it does not change your maturity (or lack thereof). Also, if what we were saying was indeed "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" I would see why you would want it delete it. As anyone who uses a "0" in place of an "o" or a "z" in place of a "s" is automatically able to be considered a complete and utter idiot. My vote of "Do not Delete" stands.

M.A. Sato

Comment Well, there's a difference between Kancho and Nuggeting. Kancho is a widely known aspect of young Japanese kids' culture. It has been well documented by a number of sources, a quick Google search can show you that. However, this Nuggeting phenomena has yet to be picked up by any larger publications (the reference cited is just one school district). Therefore, if for that reason alone, this article should be deleted. --mdd4696 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As a student at a Sydney school, NUGGETING is part and parcel of daily life. Whether or not the Wikipedia literati deem this article 'non-encyclopaedic' is irrelevant. It is a reference to today's changing social scene, and is the essence of what Wikipedia stands for. If we want a free, web-based encyclopedia which deals with the real issues, then NUGGETING surely must be included. -- Unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
  • Do not delete As to the reasons why John Howards would declare a war against NUGGETING, I'm yet to be convinced. The lack of a national study does not detract from the credence of the NUGGETING process. There is only one way to determine the staying power of this article, and indeed the concept of the NUGGET. Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia collection. Deleting at such a premature stage sets a precedent which jeopardises the relevance of Wikipedia to today's youth culture. -- A second unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
    • This is almost funny. Things don't become notable because they are on wikipedia. They must first become noteworthy before they can be included here. So, Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia is wayyyyy off. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. This can be summed up by: Things aren't notable because they're on Wikipedia. Things are on Wikipedia because they're notable. (Reminds me of something I read in a Finnish magazine: In the old days, people were on TV because they were members of the parliament. Now people are members of the parliament because they are on TV.) — JIP | Talk 13:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, echoing the reasons cited by those above me who have also voted to delete, and also because if it were notable, it wouldn't need sockpuppets to defend it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. Hilarious. - Marcika 15:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability as a widespread phenomenon. -Colin Kimbrell 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Unfortunately due to the extrmely large amount of OLD FARTS who use wikipedia, it is neccessary to get other people who know the term to support it. I believe a post on here was even made by a school teacher who has had to deal with the issue. Just because the majority of admins and users are 47 year old virgins with nothing better to do doesnt mean we deserve to be slandered and titled as ridiculous "sock-puppets" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S many references on the wikipedia article on internet sock puppeting come from blogs and internet slang definitions

DONT DELETEWhy are all of you ignorant people making such knee-jerk comments. The fact is that Nuggeting is a legitimate term which derives from ancient roots. It is a term which is very apt in our society. Your arguments are creating a host of paradox's. You all claim to be such highly intellectual Wikipedia nerds, yet all you do is display an array of contradictions and a low level of common sense. Nuggeting will remain and will grow in understanding with the fullness of time. And at the appropriate juncture you will all claim to have first cited the meaning of the word. Nuggeting is encyclopedic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) This users only edits have been to this discussion and it's talk page.[reply]

DONT DELETE as for us all being sockpuppets this website states "Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects." is it too hard to believe that there are more than one person who agree with the same argument, or should we accuse all the "delete" arguments as being sock puppetry as well???

also, of course the method section is all original research, the only websites you would accept as a source are just as conservative as yourself. maybe if you would accept this article then others would see it as acceptible too. please someone help me out here, tell me how that anecdote isn't written from NPOV

if you're going to delete this article for it being a neologism may i direct you to delete also the terms "wikipedia", "Wiktionary", "Wikibooks", and "Wikinews". These terms make even less sense, have no origin and no sources that could be deemed verifiable by your standards!

BTW you have suggested we look at "testosterone poisoning" as an example. here is a quote from that page: "The earliest printed reference appears to be the 1985 book A Feminist Dictionary. It is unclear whether this refers to existing slang or is the editors' humorous neologism." need i point out that the origin of this is also shady AND it is a neologism - you've said it yourself!

im sick and tired of people saying its unencyclopedic, at least our arguments have substance! we are saying why it should stay and we are giving damn good reasons too. "unencyclopedic" is not an argument without some sort of elaboration and sockpuppetry is an opinion NO FACT whatsoever.

you know what, you all seem to know so much that we know longer need "wikipedia - an encyclopedia by the people for the peple" i think "wikipedia - by conservative autocratic fools who know everything to tell everyone else what is and what isnt."

ill finish (for now) by saying this. you're all rather misinformed. the term you're looking for is not "sockpuppet" its "minority group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.127.4 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC) This users only edits have been to this discussion.[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Delete, unverifiable was a comment left by one of the disgruntled users of wikipedia. If we were to define "contradiction" there would be this caption next to it, how about you VERIFY your opinion with evidence, you accuse them of using unverified information and then you dont even verify your arguements. Furthermore, if your going to leave a comment make sure it is a COMMENT and not "reasons given above". If thats all you have to contribute to this debate keep your uninformed opinions to yourself you unoriginal fool. At least write a valid reason as to why you should think it should be deleted instead of "dido".

I totally agree with the previous comment, sockpuppetry is an excuse thrown around to destroy this credible article and if that is the strongst arguement you have then your in trouble. Sockpuppetry is an arguement against a small number of the supporters not the article itself, it is irrelevant to the legitmacy of the article and therefore an arguement which mentions it should be disregarded.

Wikipeida - A website of close-minded, conservative, narrow-minded, rigid and discrimminatory users (hopefully just the minority i have been exposed to) who enjoy attacking articles in a subjective and personalised way and in doing so contradicting themselves in their criticisms of other supporters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.18.208 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What good would that do? Don't make it personal... -Colin Kimbrell 18:10, 27 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NUGGET&oldid=1255349950"