Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asshole (third nomination)


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Asshole
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Despite several calls to "keep and improve" in the previous AfD, very little improvement, if any, is noticeable over the last two years. That leaves the article in an abysmal state. All but the first two references are nothing more than usage examples; they are not sources that discuss the word qua word. The first two references are indeed about the word, but they are dictionaries -- which, while perfectly permissible, certainly illustrates the type of reference document that this sort of topic is better suited for! The mere presence of a word in a dictionary is not enough to establish notability, nor are the simple examples of usage that the other references represent. I'm certainly not claiming it's not a notable word, but I think the dearth of quality references is proof that there is nothing encyclopedic to say about the word. Powers T 13:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article was not tagged for improvement. The term is as storied as fuck in Indo-European, if not moreso.  The assertion that the article is not encyclopedic is just that - an assertion.  If we need to add notable usages such as GWB calling Adam Clymer a "major league asshole" that can be done.μηδείς (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "oppose" is not a meaningful action. See Guide to deletion for how to express yourself clearly in AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From the user's comments, we know what this user !votes "Keep."--GrapedApe (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose my opposing deletion could be quite confusing. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually oppose anything. You just "oppose"d, which is not meaningful.  Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That reference you mention is already in the article. Did you even read the article?  Regardless, the problem is not a lack of sources that provide evidence that the word is in use.  What are missing are sources that talk about the word as a word.  The articles cited do not discuss the import of the word "asshole"; they merely define it and discuss situations in which the word was used.  That's not the same thing.  Powers T 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep unique word in the language with an interesting and well-documented etymology. Enough sources are present to pass WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is inadequate. If the article can be fixed, it should fixed. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said the article could be fixed. I noted that the article was previously kept with the expectation that the article could be fixed.  I then presented evidence that the article was not fixed, and I put to you that the reason for that is precisely because it's not fixable.  Powers T 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Either Wikipedia is a a dictionary or it's not. If not, redirect to rectum. Emeraude (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anus might be better, don't you think? Powers T 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Very well-documented word that does definitely not have the same intended meaning as "rectum" or "anus"; in my opinion it has encyclopedic value because of it's wide usage and contexts. The article should be fixed and not deleted, regardless of what the previous nominations said. CET  TALK  19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to fix it? Lots of words are used widely but they don't all get encyclopedia articles.  Powers T 19:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Does NOT mean the same as "rectum" or "anus", and I concur with other Keep/Strong Keep user comments above. Fix, tidy, and better define. And stop the ill-informed continual removal requests every year or so too! Jimthing (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect The article is currently used as a hook on which to hang insults of specific living people and this is unacceptable.  The rest of the content seems to contravene policy and is largely worthless, being poorly sourced and written.  The title is too common a word to be red-linked so I suggest redirecting to sociopath, as this seems to be the primary topic - an obnoxious person.  If readers should actually be looking for the anus article then they can be directed there by means of suitable hatnotes. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Once again we have individuals suggesting that the article be "fixed" or "improved" without any suggestion of how that might be done. I reiterate that the sources referenced in the article are all (with the exception of two dictionary definitions) superficial examples of usage and not in-depth coverage of the word.  There are simply no useful resources around which to write a "fixed" article.  Simply saying "keep and fix" is unhelpful in the extreme without some actual effort put forth to prove that a fix is possible.  Powers T 13:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to improve the current approach of the article by using sources such as Why we curse. My view is that the resulting material would be better done under a title such as insult or swearing.  To me, the proper topic here is the type of person which is described - what that source calls a "social deviant".     Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and possibly add the humor template at the top. I find it rather amusing. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Abstain my favorite userbox will lose some of its offensive quality without this article, but oh well. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your favourite userbox can quite easily link to asshole. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * it was a joke, hence the "strong abstain". i know there are plenty of other ways to do such linking, but thanks for the pointer. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly adequate, though certainly improvable, encyclopedia article about a word, which goes above and beyond a mere dicdef. —Angr (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What in this article would not belong in a comprehensive dictionary article? Powers T 22:22, 2 December 2010 (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.