Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asshat


 * 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 Delete.. Aksi_great (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Asshat


unsourced attribution of derogatory term - seems like an attack page Ronnotel 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please...LGF is no more an attack page than any other on the net. It's quite tame compared to many I've seen in the past.  If anyone thinks LGF is an attack page, maybe they should check out the numerous Indymedia sites or DailyKos.  Then they can get back to me... John1schn 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — John1schn (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I believe the nominator was calling the article, not Little Green Footballs, an "attack page." --Slowking Man 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. (Heh). Ronnotel 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT gdonovan````
 * Delete, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing but a personal attack and a dic-def (already at Wiktionary). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 'cuz I'm an asshat. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just another slang term. Do not delete. — Brunochojnacki (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If something is "just another slang term", then it likely fails WP:NEO, hence the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary, unless some compelling cultural significance can be established that merits an article. --Slowking Man 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef. wikipediatrix 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this piece of assshat - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not a slang dic. ike9898
 * Strong Delete, per above. Nacon kantari  02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and if anyone disagrees they're an mega-asshat.  SkierRMH, 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I touch myself, I want you to touch me. Xihr 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment When I feel down, I want you above me. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - !vote containing a personal attack was removed. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect - has already been transwikied (18 months ago), and I don't think an encyclopedic article can really be created, but deleting will probably only lead to a definition type page being created again in the future. I don't see this as an attack page, though. Mishatx 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this stayed, would it be long before tub of goo and like crap found its way here? Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It is well established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and neologisms need sources, and this article has neither.-- danntm T C 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or move to Wiki Dictionary and keep a link. The term (derogatory) is in fairly common use, and deletion will merely result in its recreation in a few weeks or months. I think it was invented by Rachael Lucas, but have only my memory for that citation. htom 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, common use is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Xtifr tälk 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to discourage recreation. The article is merely a dicdef, but if deleted will most likely be recreated at some point.  Movementarian (Talk) 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if it's recreated, it can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD. Or it can be salted to prevent recreation.  Xtifr tälk 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not Urban dictionary. Viridae Talk 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it......all forms of verbage used to compliment or insult people are words in the language that we must have reference to and explanations for. Doesn't matter who's side you are on......but only an asshat would want this deleted...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:16:49 — 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * The project whose goal is to document all of the words in the language (and indeed all words in all languages) is Wiktionary. It is over there.  This project is Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Wikidictionary - I use the word myself, but it's not something that needs an article. --Elar a girl  Talk 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Park3r 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Very notable term with 1,120,000 Google hits. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been in Wiktionary since 2004. Uncle G 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Burn (Delete) Could be considered a personal attack to a group, derrogatory, I am a teen and never hear it, Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary.  → p00rleno (lvl 77) ← ROCKS CRS  3:33 pm ET NOvember 20 2006  
 * Delete-while many of those participating in this discussion are providing a perfect illustration of this term's meaning, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - dicdef, neologism, does not come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologisms. TheronJ 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Big  top  23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef, WP:NEO drseudo (t) 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologismsJasper23 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article could be had on Asshat, but this isn't it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment why the notice about ballot stuffing? The blog doesn't advocate any stuffing, and no stuffing has been going on. Andjam 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, low-profile neologism; not enough encyclopedic information about it to support anything beyond a dicdif. --Aquillion 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not pass WP:NEO. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.