Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milkshake Duck (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NAD. Neologism that was used for a short time and got some coverage. Most of this is about Internet celebrities. The Oxford dictionary quote should tell you everything about this - "did not consider usage of the neologism to be sufficiently long-lived or widespread to warrant inclusion in their dictionaries". The fact that the word was used in a podcast is deemed relevant to this article should also tell you a lot about the notability of the term. RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG and has received a fair amount of ongoing coverage. See some source examples below; more sources exist in addition to these examples. Furthermore, it was Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year and is included in the Macquarie Dictionary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep - You do realize that there were more than 160,000 page views to this page in the past year, with some significant spikes. Check the activity graph to see it is no fringe term and that people are actively going to Wikipedia to read about this. [1]. I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting. So you're not a fan of them, but how does BBC World Service coverage sound then? (What is Milkshake Duck, BBC Wolrd Service, 17 Dec 2017) Look at the list of the references, which includes New York Times and ABC News, and you'll see this is very well covered. It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion when it clearly meets notability guidelines and has extensive reliable source coverage. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting."

Someone briefly mentioning a term in one shouldn't be noted.

"It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion"

Really? I cited a particular guideline. It's not a dictionary. RoseCherry64 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider it to be a term, rather than a simple dictionary definition and nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Northamerica1000 said. And you cited one specific guideline while ignoring the greater encyclopedic nature of the term. It's more than just a WP:DICDEF - it's a phenomenon that is being explored in multiple reliable news outlets. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"greater encyclopedic nature" Most of the coverage is about some controversy related to Tim Soret, a minor video game developer who doesn't even have his own article. It mentions in passing Elon Musk's "pedo guy" comments which have been widely covered, with one reference. I cannot find a single other reference calling Elon Musk a "milkshake duck" in press. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing cherry-picked issues without an evaluation of the whole picture. Let's just let the !vote chips fall where they may. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Fuzhead and Northamerica1000.--Jorm (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2018 (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.