Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fnord

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord[edit]

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

A word from fiction that in a Google search has no reliable sources that I could find. Could be a redirect to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Article is close to a hoax or practical joke. Principal sources on Google seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia and books that are compilations of Wikipedia articles. It is perhaps appropriate that something almost without meaning has no sources but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are sources to be found such as 2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade. The worst case would be merger into another page such as The Illuminatus! Trilogy or subliminal message. Per our editing policy, this is not done by deletion. Andrew (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry allowed me to discover exactly what "fnord" was when I encountered it during work - thus doing exactly what wikipedia was intended to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.246.222 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you describe where you encountered it please as there seem to be almost no sources for its use in the real world. In fact the most important source seems to be Wikipedia itself which is, I am sure, contrary to some policy or other that we have. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of a source which corroborates the article's content see Anarchy Bridge. Andrew (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page, which is hardly a RS, says that there was once fnord graffitied on a bridge Andrew. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very amusing and ironic but WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things made up one day) seems relevant here, which amongst other things says "All articles need to cite reliable sources; if you can't do that because there aren't any sources documenting what you invented, then your content is unverifiable and should not be posted on Wikipedia." Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems quite reliable and the facts about the bridge are confirmed by the book given as a source above. WP:MADEUP is not relevant because the bridge, the word, &c. were not made up by the editors of the article. The original works which did make these things up are well documented in reliable secondary sources such as Discordianism in the works of Robert Anton Wilson. Andrew (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in RS (e.g. [1], [2]), even used in fiction ([3]). --cyclopia ^speak! 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep neologism that has entered individual notability. Commonly used in allusions, especially in IT. Similar to Grok Foobar, etc- See [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

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.