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. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Salute[edit]

Aussie Salute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I propose this article for deletion on behalf of User:Postcard Cathy more details to follow Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dep. I was referred here after proding the article for the second time and the editor suggested if I feel the same, I nominate it a second time. OOOPS Forgot to check the history. Anywho, the article hasn't been improved to the point that shows me why it is wiki worthy. I don't know if it can be. There are no sources whatsoever and it is still a stub. Postcard Cathy 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Aussia salute? Aussie. Salute? what is the world coming too - argh Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be claiming that waving one's hand in front of one's face is a manœuvre that has a name. This will not stand. tomasz. 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off pending rewrite. Seems possible. tomasz. 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Culture of Australia if it can be proven. Otherwise, delete it. T_{Talk to me} 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or possibly into Australian English vocabulary? EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This is not a neologism, but a longstanding term in Australia and could definitely be expanded past a stub. It can be sourced, with a bit of research, the question is, will it? -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, definitely falls under WP:NEO, but there are sources available should anyone care to improve it. See also Google Books results. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does this fall under WP:NEO? The term has not been recently coined; the Google News search shows usage (in the US press) from 1988 and I know, but can't source at this stage, that it has been in use for well over 50 years. It may or may not be notable, but it is not a neologism. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs improvement ;). Term dates to boer war, is hardly a neologism. What it needs is references. I will come up with some.Garrie 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It helps if you search for Australian salute + fly. Maybe Aussie Salute should be a redirect but that's for talk-page discussion not AfD.
  • convict creation website
  • Ausimports - Flies (includes cartoon of guy in slouch hat)
  • Fly times when the dry comes There was even a world-famous gesture called "the Australian salute", now largely absen from the national repertoire.Garrie 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Definitely a widely used term both in Australia and outside it and certainly not a neologism. Transwikiing to wiktionary might be a better option, though, if it's not already there. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's also variously called the "Barcoo salute" and the "Bush salute". Uncle G 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to discover that we lack an article on the bush fly (Musca vetustissima), incidentally. Uncle G 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Common, wellknown phrase which is even included in phrasebooks. [1] Look forward to Garrie's improvements. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh! - I guess I dobbed myself in for that one! will be after the AfD closes.Garrie 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A widely used term in Australia ExtraDry 09:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why is it orphaned and unsourced?172.145.243.196 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the article in fact is sourced, that question is unanswerable, being based as it is upon a false premise. Uncle G 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a false permise Uncle G. I asked before looking at the new version of the article. Postcard Cathy 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain I have no insight whatsoever to add to this discussion. 151.197.191.191 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, sources provided, although not in wide use up here in Brisbane. What's with the Abstain vote above me? Lankiveil 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Beats me. Struth. Orderinchaos 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, although article needs to be renamed to "Aussie salute" to meet WP:MOS. Orderinchaos 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please it is notable not neologism but rename for style yuckfoo 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is not a neo, and there is plenty of reliable sources. John Vandenberg 08:01, 4 June 2007 (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.