Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2

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 of the debate was Delete. Possible Sockpuppets, IPs not counted. Over 60% are in favor of delete(8-5). This article is unencyclopedic, violates WP:NOR, violates WP:NOT, and has little verifiability. These policies take precedence over the lack of a 2/3s majority, which is generaly preferable. Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza}13:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Also: The first AfD.[1]

Nominated for deletion a few months ago with no consensus. Recent talk page disscussion leads me to belieev another afd is not out of order. WP:NOT a dictionary or slang guide. This article also functions as an original research magnet: people are using it to invent and promote their own neologisms. For these reasons, I think a deletion is called for. Friday (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is BS. Molotov (talk)
  19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Official policy: WP:ISNOT a...slang and idiom guide, WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Original Research. And that's not to mention the verifiability issues with all of these unsourced neologisms. --Kgf0 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang --Kgf0 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' I agree; there is nothing of value here.--Mpeisenbr 22:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia doesn't see its role as a dictionary or a slang guide, but I assure you, no dictionary I know of on the net has these terms organized this way, and most slang dictionaries I've see are pathetic. For one thing, no one organizes terms by topic. I stumbled across this looking for a way to translate a pun in a piece of literature. By the way, I'm particularly impressed that the list included the Lithuanian word for a penis. Maybe Wikipedia needs to start up another portal on language? ---- brunhilda

Um, yeah, I think it's called Wiktionary, and if you ask me, that's where "terms" belong, perhaps categorized to duplicate the function being served here in apparent violation of policy. (See also my previous argument on the matter. --Kgf0 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Cleanup This list references a valid, if vulgar, part of lifeworld culture and helps make the internet "not suck" (ok, pun intended). But if kept, would need some heavy cleanup and neologism vigilance, for which I would volunteer. Youngamerican 02:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination.  freshgavin^TALK   05:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup, this seems to be the most extensive list of its kind anywhere on the internet. -Andrew 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. Seems a valid enough article and not one to be found elsewhere. Whilst it might break WP:NOT's rules, the 'pedia would be poorer without it. Redvers · Hello 16:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An article on vulgarities, slang and idioms with examples is perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.68.195 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang guide. This stuff is unencyclopedic and unmanageable. -- Francs2000 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Positively useful. -Alexander 007 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (and if Wikipedia is not a dictionary, can we please, pretty please, delete List of English words of French origin? Much thanks.)[reply]
• Keep. Excellent point above. This topic invites abuse perhaps more than others. It must be reviewed often. Something that "is" has value in truth if that is our overall objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.211.195 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 October 2005
• Keep. No other reasonable source for this informmation. I have referred to this several times n recent months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.1.73 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 October 2005
• Keep - "An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία (engkuklios paideia), literally "a rounded education". (Some encyclopedias are titled cyclopaedia, a now somewhat archaic form of the word, and the terms are interchangeable.)" - Wikipedia. Why edit when correction is more appropriate? ... Nigel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.144.13 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 October 2005
• keep this please yes it has vulgarities but people still need to research vulgarities too Yuckfoo 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BS just like that and sock infected also --JAranda | watz sup 04:13, 23 October 2005 (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.