Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random Mootness

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Random Mootness

Not encyclopedic, nor is there potential to become encyclopedic. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion (nonsense?) Should be deleted. --Canoeguy81 06:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Random Mootness is a common expression in the North-eastern United States. This page should not be flagged for deletion, as it is an expression that is severely under-represented on the Internet.

• A google search found absolutely no references to "random mootness" on the WWW. That makes me doubtful it's a common expression.--Canoeguy81 06:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As previoiusly stated, this expression is under-represented on the Internet; hence the reason for the Wikipedia entry. It is purely colloqial - Western-half of NY, PA, Ohio & Western Maryland especially. If you have access to a major university library, I can provide you with the names of scholarly linguistics journals which have documented this expression, as a colleague of mine has written extensively on such topics.

• The anonymous comments are by User:67.20.251.30. RickK 06:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• So I guess I need to create a Wiki account to lend any more credibility? I can't anonymously contribute to the World's Lexicon?

So much for the stated Wikipedia policy Don't bite the newcomers. Your elitism is arrogant and offensive.

• Hi anon, it helps if you sign your comments, even if you don't have an account. Unfortunately we have a problem with hoaxes and vandals, so we need everything to be Ŕverifiable. But actually I'm not too sure what will happen if you can provide precise references in scholarly linguistics journals. By the way, if you are looking for the world's "Lexicon" you need wiktionary. Kappa 07:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Feco 07:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kappa - I think I'll just throw in the towel though. Maybe when Merriam-Webster picks up the expression, someone else will add it to the Wikis.

• Delete and comment: No one's biting anyone and no one wishes for you to throw in the towel. After looking at your edit history, I noticed that most of your edits simply didn't qualify as encyclopedia entries. The one you did about "shoe shopping" was a perfect example of what I mean. That isn't elitism at all. It's a combination of common sense and wise use of the site's resources. Opening an account won't necessarily mean your anonymous contributions would lack credibility. If anything, it'll strengthen your position. The door's open. Come on in. If that isn't anti-elitism, I don't know what is. - Lucky 6.9 07:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, I hadn't felt the need to vote on this till User:67.20.251.30 began throwing random nonsense into it, but this is verging on speedy delete status now. Delete. RickK 08:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE

• Ok, relax and read the updated version. Hopefully you'll agree it's up to "Wiki" standards. It was my belief that the point of the Wiki was to introduce the topic as a sort of "Place-holder" for update later. I didn't expect to have to spend as much time as I have, for a simple explanation. Futhermore, the Random nonesense, as you put it, is the key to Random Mootness. I wouldn't believe you one bit if you said you've never discussed "Who would win..." in hypothetical scenarios. Animal Planet seems to think it has enough merit to do an entire series of Random Mootness as it relates to the animal kindom - not by that name, of course.
  • Don't edit other people's comments. RickK 08:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Lots of hits on Google, but most, perhaps all, are irrelevant. The article's of some interest, but it's essayistic and about an insignificant neologism. Delete. -- Hoary 09:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• I've certainly never heard of "random mootness" and I don't feel as though I know much more about it having read the article. Why does the "Related Random Mootness" section have a link to "Wikiepedia"? Unless somebody can demonstrate the widespread existence of this phenomenon (involving an audience of at least 5,000) I will vote to Delete Oliver Keenan 09:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). In fact this is worse than I first thought, if you look at the links in the "Related Random Mootness" section, they are to an array of bizarre, random, totally unrelated pages, a significant percentage of which are also on the VfD page. Oliver Keenan 10:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope I am adding my note appropriately. A friend pointed out this page. Based on personal experience, I would expect the "audience" to well exceed 5,000. I do not believe the article should be removed, but the author of the article has made an error. Per the article, the genealogy of the term involves the sitcom Seinfeld. Seinfeld ran from 1989-1998. The term took hold in WNY (Buffalo and Rochester, NY and surrounding regions) prior to that time. Although I have no evidence to verify the relationship other than personal observation, the term seems to stem from an episode of Saturday Night Live that first aired on 10/20/84. Jesse Jackson was a guest on the show. At one point, he played a character in a game show. When asked a question, he responds “The question is moot. I’ll take the car!” I did not see the episode, but noticed that the word “moot” was being overused in everyday language in my high school – with the meaning becoming more general, akin to irrelevant. After inquiring, I was advised that quite a few people had seen the episode and that the word stuck a chord as being humorous. Therefore, it stuck. Keep in mind that SNL carried terrific ratings at this point. Shortly after that time, the expression seemed to naturally expand into “random mootness”. I later went to SUNY-Buffalo and usage of the term was widespread. Apparently, the phenomenon was not limited to my high school. Again, I have no idea how or why… 21 years later, both “moot” and “random mootness” continue to be commonplace terms in the area. I do not know if everyone uses it, but many do. One specific place where I have heard it repeatedly is at Buffalo Bills football or Buffalo Sabres hockey games over the years. When a play goes against the home team, I have often heard – and, admittedly, occasionally said – comments along the line of “Oh, that was just moot!” or “C’mon, ref! What is with this random mootness?” I do not mean to imply that the term is only used at sporting events, as I hear it in the workplace and many other settings. In summary, I am surprised that the term is geographically isolated and am equally surprised that it has no presence on the web. However, why would anyone bother? To me, it is like devoting a page to the term “oh, boy” or “I agree”. It is just a phrase… However, it is clear that many people are not familiar with it. If Wikipedia is a place to spread this type of information, then I think it should stay. By the way, one poster comments “…links in the "Related Random Mootness" section, they are to an array of bizarre, random, totally unrelated pages…”. Are you missing the point? The author is trying to better define the term by linking to “random mootness”. I don't have a user name.12.19.225.242 13:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Feel free to support the article by adding those references to "scholarly linguistics journals" to the article itself. FreplySpang (talk) 13:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, I flipped a coin and it came up tails, so Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 13:57, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. And good luck finding anything in scholarly linguistics journals to support it. This is about as close to lingustics as Demi Moore's movie of The Scarlet Letter is to Nathaniel Hawthorne's book. --Angr/_comhrá 16:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless we see verifiable citations from the aforementioned scholarly journals. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete My friends and I use "random mootness" all the time. I'm located in Rochester, NY - didn't know the phrase was as widely used as it appears to be.
• Delete, not verifiable--nixie 04:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE Of course it's verifiable! Call any friends or relatives in the geographic areas specified and ask them.

• Do Not Delete and question the validity of the opinions of people in California, England and Australia regarding a regional phrase. I do notice a Wiki entry for Lake effect snow, which was exclusively a regional phrase until our national spotlight during the Blizzard of '77. And if anyone can say they have never argued about Artificial turf, the Designated hitter rule, what is Gonzo (Muppet), Ginger Grant vs. Mary Ann Summers or Wilma Flintstone vs. Betty Rubble, I feel sorry for you. - BBH
  • Comment: Am I mistaken in thinking that each user gets only one vote? This seems to be 12.19.225.242's third.--Canoeguy81 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Am I mistaken in thinking that there are such things as gateways which present the same IP address for each user? If you want, I can post from home just to get a different IP address. - BBH
    • Comment: I'm not very knowledgable about these things, and in fact I don't even know what a gateway is, so of course I didn't consider that possiblity. Still, I find it odd that three separate users using the same IP address would all flout the standard custom of signing their votes (and comments).--Canoeguy81 22:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Same university campus, perhaps? --James
      • Or corporate MAN? Anyway, here is a post from home just to make it official. Still doesn't change my WNY opinion. And I have addressed your anonymity issues. - BBH

• Lake effect snow isn't a phrase. It's a verifiable natural phenomenon. Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete local nonsense. sjorford →•← 15:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.