Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy bunny (2nd 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 merge to Etymology of Wicca. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy bunny[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a WP:G4 speedy, but declined it since the current version has more sourcing and slightly more content. Because of that, and that the previous AfD had been in 2006, I thought that this would benefit more from getting a more full discussion at AfD. There are some sources in the article that look legit, but also some that fall under blog sources. My predominant concern is that this is essentially a dictionary definition when you get down to it and would be better served as an entry in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were concerns about it being a neologism at the last AfD and I can see where this might be concerns about this years later. I've heard the term and am familiar with it, so I wouldn't entirely consider it a new neologism. I'm more concerned about this being essentially a dictionary definition when you get down to it. I'm open to persuasion about keeping the article, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just need some good argument that this goes beyond a dictionary definition that could be summed up in a few lines on Wiktionary and maybe as a subsection at Wicca. I'll try to clean this up as best as possible, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning now towards merging to Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010 as opposed to Wicca in general, as there's a good jumping off point for this to be merged there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wicca. Passing mentions and self-published rants don't really satisfy the WP:GNG, though it's certainly a common phrase. Unfortunately, I doubt that we're going to rise above Urban Dictionary's coverage of the term, so I suggest a merge. It's a legitimate topic for that article, and a few sentences won't hurt anything. As a standalone article, it's a bit iffy at best. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wicca as suggested above. A common wiccan neologism but a neologism nonetheless. The phrase itself doesn't have a lot of meaning - just a description of certain types of practitioners - and so its unlikely there will ever be in depth coverage of the phrase itself. Stalwart111 14:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wicca. Well, this feels very light as an article, so deletion is worth considering. However, there are some probably-acceptable sources as well as some self-published ones (some quotes in the references would make it easier to judge whether they are reliable in this case). The long list of light, jokey, semi-pejorative synonyms is not good for the article's case, as it makes it seem more like a slang dictionary or perhaps Wiktionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. The suggested merge to Wicca seems sensible as the references are probably sufficient to sustain a brief mention of the term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestions that this term doesn't support enough for its own page. In the first ten pages of Google News, there was only a single reference [1] to "fluffy bunny" as something Wicca-related. There were several more (including [2], [3], and [4]) referring to a computer hacker or group of hackers. However, most references to a "fluffy bunny" were to... actual fluffy bunnies. The first four pages of a standard Google search returned pretty much the same, with only Urban Dictionary and the SPS referenced in the article's lede using it as a Wiccan term. So I suggest merge content to Wicca, but redirect title to Rabbit. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Well, I hadn't thought to redirect it to rabbit, as I strongly associate the phrase with Wicca, but I suppose that's a valid redirect. I suppose the disambiguation page might even be better target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably go with the disambiguation page itself since there are at least three uses of the term itself. If this is the common verdict, I'd recommend that the disambiguation page gets moved to Fluffy bunny and maybe, maybe a hatnote on the rabbit article, although I've included a mention on the overall bunny disambiguation page. Since merging seems to be a fairly common consensus so far, I'll start trying to work on a small section for the term. I actually found a pretty good section to merge it into: Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010. There's already mention of Traditional Witches vs Gardnerianism, so this would be fairly easily merged into that section with little awkwardness. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me either. Stalwart111 02:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good solution. I can support this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin: Since the overwhelming consensus is to merge and redirect, I've merged some of the pertinent data at Etymology_of_Wicca#Increasing_popularisation_and_reaction:_1990.E2.80.932010. I would recommend creating a redirect of Fluffy bunny (pejorative) for any users specifically searching for that term, then including that on the disambiguation page for fluffy bunny, which should be moved to the basic "fluffy bunny" term rather than have it as "fluffy bunny (disambiguation)". I can do the cleanup for this if necessary, but I want to avoid any COI with the close of the AfD if possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created the redirect, so all that needs to be done from this point is delete the fluffy bunny article up for deletion, move the disambiguation page to this name, and then change the name on what will now be the basic FB page to the redirect I just created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless the merged content is reworded (and revision deleted?) we can't delete Fluffy bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Therefore can't it just be closed as redirect? -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd make more sense to move the disambiguation page to just "fluffy bunny". Typically we don't keep disambiguation pages with the text (disambiguation) after it if there's nothing at the main search term of just "fluffy bunny" and it'd just redirect to a disambiguation page in general. It's sort of superfluous. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means doing a history merge of Fluffy bunny (disambiguation) into Fluffy bunny then, doesn't it? Neither can be deleted but they can be combined and Fluffy bunny (disambiguation) could redirect and be left unused. -- Trevj (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the history merge? Fluffy bunny is a completely different page and wasn't, to my knowledge, ever used as a disambiguation page. There would be no need to preserve the history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for creating a bit of a storm in a teacup... I actually came here because it was one of the backlogged items which needed closing! Anyway, doesn't the history need preserving (to preserve attribution) because some of this content of Fluffy bunny was copied to Etymology of Wicca with this edit? -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I gotcha. I thought that there was usually a history of deleted edits that were preserved when you did a move? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about that. Anyway, thanks for offering to do the cleanup!

-- Trevj (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2013 (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.