Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep and Cleanup. As a number of voters pointed out, this article needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOT I: 2.3 . The list should only include the more notable, varifiable, terms(such as those used in popular culture movies/books). The complete list, which is what this page mostly is now(although some terms may be bogus), can go on Wiktionary. Also, this was AFD'd to soon after the last AFD.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slang

List of sexual slang was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-18. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18.

This is an 89KB list of slang terms, making it not merely a violation of Section 1.2.3 of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", but one of sickeningly gargantuan proportions. The first three paragraphs, the introduction, is the only segment that begins to approach meeting the definition of an encyclopedia article; the remainder, whether it's useful or not (which is irrelevant), is just a list of terms. A list of terms does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not the first nomination. The Literate Engineer 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. It is informative, descriptive by comparisons/groupings, and it is extensive (which indeed has its strong and weak points). Further, there is a competing section of WP:NOT, namely 1.5.2, which allows for "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles". Since many of the terms on the page indeed have their own articles, it is useful for encyclopedic purposes to group and compare them, and this indeed assists with the organization of articles. Also, just because it is long is not an excuse to delete an article, but rather should be an impetus to break it up into separate articles. There's no denying that neologisms and cruft have crept into this article, but that fact demands that more contributors participate in handling verification of such terms. Last, I have to protest this "nomination bombardment", where a consensus wasn't arrived at the first time, so the argument losers try again. This also happened with Body parts slang, and its deletion resulted in a very informative article being wiped off with a slight majority that could not have been reasonably construed as a consensus. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why is no reason given for re-nomination? It was voted on like 2 weeks ago with a quite high ratio of keeps. Anyway like it or not there are lots of lists of jargon/slang/technical terms on Wikipedia, for example List of baseball jargon. As long as they're well organized and useful, I don't see the problem. It's just when the subject is sex or something controversial that people start to look for excuses to delete such lists. Until consensus is to delete all slang/jargon/terms lists changes, I can't see deleting just certain ones for subjective personal reasons, under the thin excuse of arguably breaking WP:NOT. --W.marsh 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being useful is a necessary but insufficient criterion for an entry. For starters, it needs to be an actual article, which means prose.The Literate Engineer 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic, just because something is in "poor taste" does not mean it should be deleted. -Skrewler 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not poor taste, but that this is a thesaurus, mis-placed in the encyclopaedia in contravention of our clear Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Freakofnurture had exactly the right idea in the last AFD discussion. The article should be trimmed, with the large home-grown and mis-placed thesaurus entries replaced with links to WikiSaurus (which, unlike Wikipedia, is a thesaurus — and a multilingual one, at that), and renamed back to sexual slang, where it used to be. This does not require the article to be deleted, but it does require some resolve, and support (in terms of keeping the thesaurus entries from growing again once excised) from the various editors who have expressed their agreement with this. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per previous AfD result. Bryan 00:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. When it says "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", I think it means that we shouldn't devote an entire article to each and every one of these slang terms. And rightly so. I think having them all quarantined on one page will suffice. I also think that after weeding out a lot of the obviously obscure (and bogus) slang terms, the page should be capped and not strive to become a neverending all-inclusive list of every ridiculous dirty phrase ever conceived. - Wikipediatrix 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Previous AFD isn't even a month old and the vote was to keep. That's enough for me right there. 23skidoo 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am one of the few editors who ever tries to maintain this list, by removning the most obvious vandalism and nonsense. It is unmaintainable and unverifiable because there are no sources (except "South Park", apparently). Anyone voting to "keep" should be prepared to do participate in the trimming that everyone calls for. (That said, this is an irregelular AfD). -Willmcw 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up – Trim greatly per my previous vote and per Uncle G. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per last nomination, if you want to renominate something which yielded a clear "keep", you must have a very good reason for doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep — as I understand it, the "slang guide" was intended to address how slang is used, not the slang itself. But yes, I'm not sure what useful encyclopedic purpose this list provides, other than perhaps as a future reference. — RJH 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, and then delete — I was the originator of what is now stored as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18, where my rationalle was WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (#3 A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide), WP:V, WP:NOR. I apologize for the length of my comment; however, I feel it is necessary to address the various issues involved in this renomination. My original nomination was timed specifically to coincide with discussion then ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2; in reference accusations of nomination bombardment, I feel that it is appropriate that similar nominations be made concurrently, both to focus the attention of those having opinions on the issue, and to forestall, in some measure, the inevitable claims that the existance of one policy violation supports the existance of another (i.e., if Body parts slang exists, then List of sexual slang should also exist, and vice versa) as were proffered this time by W.marsh. Given the number of people who would agree with the statement "'List of' considered harmful," real nomination bombardment would be stuffing an AFD day with every "List of" article on the site - and that would be harmful, IMHO. Further, the circular logic of using one policy violation to support another at best puts precedent over policy, an idea I think would seriously degrade Wikipedia over time. After all, there's precedent for vanity pages too, and we AFD them, even though at any given time there are plenty of others continuing to exist. That said, I have to agree in part with Stevie is the man! when he claims that Body Parts may not have had proper consensus; if he feels that strongly about it, I would direct him to Deletion Review. Similarly, I am disappointed that this nomination was made so soon, as this diminishes the odds that it will ever be removed - we can't simply renominate every three weeks until we "win," and apparant out-of-process nominations will garner more Keep votes, as exemplified by 23skidoo. Nevertheless, in the end, this article has numerous problems that speak in favor of, at worst, deletion and, at best, Merge as appropriate (the text of the intro and significant, verified terms to Sexual slang per Uncle G, the remaining verifiable terms to WikiSaurus), and I suppose that is constructively my vote here, even if it means my Disciplined Deletionist credentials are revoked. I wish I could spend more time policing the article; OTOH, I would also like to keep my job, and spending time on that particular page is not likely to help me there. FWIW, I think a move to Sexual slang should, at a minimum, keep the neologisms and protologisms to a comparative minimum. One thing I'm sure of: if we decide again to keep this article, we need many more people looking at it to ensure that it does not suck; to do otherwise will serve only to undermine the credibility of the project as a whole, and of Wikipedia policy in general. Keeping it under the present title creates the appearance of condoning, if not encouraging, the addition of, well, anything that makes a schoolboy snicker. Finally, I would also point out that, aside from the fact that this particular subject field has more than its fair share of attraction to vandals, my nomination and comments have never had anything to do with its contents per se, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, nor should it be. --Kgf0 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would note that this article has some verifiable content in the begininng, although the list(which violates NOR) drifts off into unencyclopedic nonsense again. The Body Parts Slang article was nothing but a nonesensical list. This really should be categorized into links to Wiktionary, instead of having the list here.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a great flytrap for vandals - keeps them away from serious articles. --Ezeu 04:29, 12 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sexual_slang&oldid=1083033324"