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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Definition list. As policy. --Gekedo 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Can be cleaned up, or converted into a category itself (after retention) for this. rootology 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a dictionary can be cleaned up into an encyclopedic article. We have Wiktionary for this stuff. And we also have Sexual slang and Sexual slurs encyclopedic articles, already cleaned up. Mukadderat 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly good, well referenced list of sexual slurs. There is no reason to delete it (WP:NOT isn't a strait jacket). --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a perfectly good, well referenced candidate for wiktionary (which is by the way, very poorly referenced). Please take a look into the Sexual slang article how it is neatly handled (I mean, wiktionary reference at the top of the article). `'mikka(t) 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete, or just delete; Wikipedia is explicitly (no pun intended) not a list of dictionary terms. A wonderful piece of work, referenced, thorough, yet not an encyclopaedic article. We already have sexual slang and sexual slurs articles, so not only is this a violation of a principle policy, it's also duplicating information held in a more suitable manner. WP:NOT is not a strait jacket? Yes, it is. If it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia, it shouldn't be here. We have a dictionary wiki for this stuff. 'I like it' is not a suitable reason to keep something which by its very nature fails one of the principle policies. Proto::type 14:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly isn't suitable for a dictionary because dictionaries don't group words according to usage. It's a classic list article that can lead off to other parts of the encyclopedia (and it does that already) and there is a very good candidate for merge at Sexual slur, producing a combination of elucidation and example. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, or transwiki the stuff Wikt doesn't already have. It doesn't matter that Wikt doesn't typically carry lists; the GFDL allows the list to be broken up into individual entries as Wiktionarians get to them. It only remains here because of the comparative obscurity of Wiktionary to many of those on previous AfDs, and an apparent feeling that Wikipedia must carry everything, even while Wikimedia offers a wide range of options. It does fail one of the guiding content guidelines that exists for a good reason -- that the articles that fall into such a category offer nothing encyclopedic about their contents beyond the outline of a meaning. It's true that WP:NOT isn't a straight jacket, but it does offer pretty good advice for a range of good reasons. This list is quite distinctly without anything above a bare-bones content, whereas the Sexual slurs article is a much better, if very weakly referenced at present, example. -Splash - tk 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well maintained, well referenced article that demonstrates the uses of sexual slurs. Complaints in previous AfDs focused on references. Well, this is an entirely new and far more scholarly approach to the subject. As shown by many of the references, this is a serious area of academic scholarship and should be covered here (note that the sexual slurs article was spun off from this list). Does not fail any policy as WP:NOT specifically permits glossary pages. I would, though, invite those who are piously spouting off about policy while praising the sexual slurs article to consider sourcing that article, as it currently fails WP:V. --JJay 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, that wasn't very pleasant, was it? Also, what do the previous AfDs have to do with this one, where neither the nominator nor the other editors actually talk about the problems they raised? Academic scholarship? Which of the references is an academic paper, as opposed to say.... a dictionary? -Splash - tk 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfDs have obvious bearing. They pointed to problems with the article and the problems were fixed. However, survival of two AfDs indicates support for the underlying validity of the concept. Many of the references I have added are from academic sources and, in fact, every item on the list could be sourced from academic sources, as I proposed months ago on the talk page. --JJay 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this AfD does the pious spouting you identified, rather than complaining about references; which is to say that it challenges the underlygin validity of the concept far more directly than before. Alright, one of the sources is academicish. But I will be quite shocked if you can find any academic paper (rather than news report or those famed dictionary entries </spout>) containing analysis about "cockgobbler", for example. -Splash - tk 00:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that unsourced entries are generally removed from the list, as has been infinitely discussed on the talk page (hence, I have removed your cock gobbler entry). Regarding your point on references, I have never used a "news source" or internet "dictionary" as sources. I have used Duke University Press, Australian Institute of Criminology, NYU Press, "Social Forces" and other high level printed sources. I am thus somewhat surprised that you do not consider these to be "academicish". --JJay 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to your sources or find them in the least inadequate; they are very good, reliable sources. The NYU one I hadn't spotted as I just looked throught the ones at the bottom; likewise "Social Forces". The Australian Institute was the academicish one I referred to. On re-visiting the Duke Uni Press one (which I only Amazoned quickly at the time), it is indeed academic. So there are more such sources than I had thought, I'll agree. Nevertheless, the bulk of them do come from dictionaries; which again are perfectly fine as sources (as long they're not of the Urband variety!). Probably your considerably better-than-average sources would find a warmer home in the relevant articles, some of which exist for certain terms, and for the others there's the lack of referencing in Sexual slurs that we've both been at pains to point out. -Splash - tk 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per --JJay. Thanks RaveenS 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT as it is simply a slang dictionary. It is not a glossary of technical terms, just slang. -Will Beback 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will Beback. -- ADNghiem501 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well established and maintained article. Metamagician3000 06:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sexual slurs. I'd normally suggest deletion because of the unnecessary details it gives, but the possibility that the individual terms will reappear as separate articles is far from unlikely. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least MergetoSexual slurs. Call me sentimental, but people worked really hard on this, and I don't want it deleted. Also, this is somewhat more than a bare glossary. Well-referenced, etc. Mangojuicetalk 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - The censors are at it again. Note how they very selectively apply Wikipedia's policies to go after slang lists with a sexual orientation, while leaving Wikipedia's multitude of other slang lists in place. By the way, the subject fields which this list spotlights are sexual and minority discrimination, and therefore the terms may be of interest to practicioners in the specialized fields of litigation and anti-discrimination activism, for they would need to become familiar with these terms. The list may also be of interest to programmers who may need to create profanity filters for servers and websites. Writers also may find a need for a list such as this, as an encyclopedia goes into more depth than a mere thesaurus, and this list links to quite a few related encyclopedia articles. Getting back to the "other slang lists" issue, there are many slang lists on Wikipedia, so even though there is a policy against slang, there is an even stronger precedent for inclusion of lists of slang. Just take a look at these:
As you can see, Wikipedia has a growing tradition of supporting its articles with lists of slang terms. Perhaps it is time to rethink the policy WP:NOT
Note that Mukadderat has made a wholesale move to delete all of the following slang lists:
Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. --List Expert 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the talk page for this glossary? The editors there have gone through a great deal of effort to verify every word on the list. So your statement that it is not verifiable is complete and utter shash. And since these words are part of subculture venacular, they are entirely encyclopedic. --List Expert 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? It would sure save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have never heard the cry of censorship uttered by anyone other than a POV pusher. The entire thiung is uncited sexcruft, and notwithstanding the blatant attempt to rewrite policy to prevent attempts to delete unverifiable content, verifiability is a core principle. WP:ILIKEIT carries substantially less weight than WP:V and WP:RS and rightly so. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What do you mean by "uncited". This list is almost fully referenced. Hence, it fully complies with WP:V and WP:RS. WP:I Don't Like it is not an excuse for not looking at the article. --JJay 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well referenced and useful. previous VFDs have failed. Lapinmies 13:26, 4 August 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.
