Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Bongz

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Bongz

Originally nominated as speedy by User:Fan-1967. The user asserted: non-notable, neologism. 12 google hits. Slac speak up! 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - why was this not left as a speedy delete? It easily meets the "patent nonsense" qualification. Hatch68 04:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. So tagged. MER-C 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wide-spread internet phenomenon which is growing every day. There are countless forums and myspace pages already featuring cat bongz prominently. It's just that the term 'Cat Bongz' is not universally accepted yet. I maintain that all images of cats with funny captions will soon be widely known as "cat bongz". The article is not nonsense or a neologism. I challenge you to point out what part of this article does not make sense.
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Pumeleon 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to provide references. Hatch68 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Clearly a neologism. To be accurate, I prod'ed it. Someone else tried a speedy on it. Don't think there's an applicable speedy category. It's not patent nonsense, with a few dozen forum hits [1] (which does not qualify as "wide-spread"). Fan-1967 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms where WP:NFT also applies are, effectively, patent nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snake Brake as an example. MER-C 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFT's tend to get zero GHits, or one. This has spread a tiny bit. Not much, but a bit. Fan-1967 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

various cat bongz examples

I actually find these examples quite funny and even sophisticated - as humour goes these days!

Cat Bongz are actually well-known. Did you try googling them?? I support this wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.150.163 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Of course we googled them. The link is six lines up ↑. Nine google hits does not make "a wide-spread internet phenomenon". Fan-1967 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fan-1967. Hagerman^(talk) 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 8 non-redundant ghits if I eliminate myspace and wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT applies, no indication of notability per WP:NEO from WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. An added clincher is that any article which talks about something being "a phenomena" should be nuked on sight. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another delete per everybodyz. And something I was wondering: is it necessary to say that a picture of a cat using a sniper rifle is "digitally altered"? Bubba hot ep 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such pictures are cute, but the phenomenon isn't notable and the word certainly isn't either. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeologanism. Anyone who thinks this is a new internet concept clearly doesn't remember the 80's when people used to post photos to tv shows or magazines. It isn't new, it's just a new buzzword that someone made up in school one day.Ga rr ie 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- non-notable, neologism, waste of space. -- Simon Cursitor 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cute kitties for sure but non notable neologism.--John Lake 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism. Something like this is more appropriate for Urban Dictionary. Pumeleon 21:17, 15 December 2006 (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.