Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-gauge

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pre-gauge

"The term pre-gauge was coined in Lowell, Massachusetts in early 2005 by members of Outlet magazine." Wolfman 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is actual slang that is used in the area. I'm not trying to promote anything except its further usage. MarkHenderson 15:00, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

yes, that's the problem. you wrote it to promote it, not because it was already notable. Wolfman 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: MarkHenderson has made only 13 edits, all to Pre-gauge and this pgae. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I moved to Lowell in September and have heard the term pre-gauge many times. I have also read about in many underground publications. MattStudivan 15:27, 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

Above entry was by User:24.128.58.201 [1]. No user registered as "MattStudivan". JoaoRicardo 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just because a term exists doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Delete as a non-notable local phenomenon. — Ливай | ☺ 20:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also note that Wikipedia is not a means of promoting any idea but only describing them. — Ливай | ☺ 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. I have several friends in Lowell and have never heard this term. This must be unique to a younger age group. Carrp | Talk 20:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 20:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough to me.--Billoday 20:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is the only edit from this user and is thus quite probably a sock puppet. — Ливай | ☺ 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - How does that follow? Please don't throw random accusations at new users. RSpeer 01:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  - What do I need to do to show that I'm not a sock puppet? I've used wikipedia for a long time as a resource, I just don't usually see something I can improve on. This entry seems to be fairly notable (by nature of its content), I have heard it used by people I know from the area, and it shouldn't be deleted simply because it is unique to a certain age group. Many things are unique to certain age groups, should we not comment on a large number of age-specific sociological functions? Or only the age-specific in certain regions? Where do we draw the line?--Billoday 22:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - It is difficult to prove that you're not a sockpuppet when you have only two edits, both on this VfD. You have every right to state your opinion, with the understanding that the admin tallying this VfD may choose to place less weight on your vote. It's not always that easy to figure out where to draw the line when it comes to notibility. In general, something that is notable only to a portion of an age group in one city is not notable. If it starts to catch on, perhaps it will become notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Carrp | Talk 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My friends in Lowell use this term, I've heard it. if a term exists- it definately should be included. we should all be so lucky as to "exist". This is about discovering new linguistic novelties. This is how the modern lexicon will be formed. who are we to stand in the way.

Note: This vote is User:TheDuchess' sole edit. Niteowlneils 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia's purpose is not to describe everything that exists. That's why Wikipedia:Votes for deletion exists, after all. We have standards on what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and a term made up by a people at some magazine just isn't notable enough. — Ливай | ☺ 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Of the relatively few google hits for this term, none of the first ten are for this meaning. Niteowlneils 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It astounds me how well known this term is to all these new voters who just happened to stop by -- given that the term has existed for at most 45 days according to the article. Wolfman 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is real, this is used. I felt it was my duty to include this term since I believe in this wikipedia's purpose. Why not compromise and include the other definition that you saw and we can have ourselves a quality wiki entry? MarkHenderson

Delete Complete vanity nonsense. Remind me never to read Outlet magazine, nor to visit any Mexican restaurant frequented by the staff. Johntex 02:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strong DELETE. *sniff* *sniff* Smells like crypto-advertising to me. So, is the magazine for those who like to shop at outlets or for people with electric receptacle fetishes? HyperZonk 17:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A term that has only been used in one town for a few weeks is not notable enough for Wikipedia. sjorford →•← 22:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. No evidence presented of use outside a very small circle. Lowell Sun: "Search For : pre-gauge Between Dates : 2/2/2005 and 2/16/2005 There Were No Articles Retrieved For This Query." Boston Globe and Boston Herald, search over the last ten years: "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." When it is mentioned in the Lowell Sun, come back and try again. With a proper source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Google News retrieves a Feb. 10th article in the Globe about a session at the Revolving Museum called "Ain't Valentine's Day" which featured stories by Matt Studivan from Outlet magazine. The word "pre-gauge" is not mentioned. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.