Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assmunch


 * 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. --Shanel 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Assmunch
Continuing AFD for Assclown. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:18Z 
 * Delete as non-notable recent neologism. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:20Z 
 * Move to Wiktionary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. mikka (t) 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete since Wiktionary does not need this crap. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I might be revealing a little POV here, but just because Beevis & Butthead used it doesn't mean it belongs here. I second the above notion, which is that I don't even see why Wiktionary needs this entry.  I don't know what the standards are for Wiktionary, whether slang and vulgar terms are accepted, but I cannot see the value in this. GestaltG 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Most dictionaries include slang words, and Wiktionary is no exception. To know what the standards are, please read the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Granting that, I wonder if Wiktionary needs to include vulgar slang? Vulgar slang would be different than mere slang; there is a big difference between say, "yinz" (Pittsburgh slang) and the entry in question, Assmunch.  I would also challenge the Attestation angle for inclusion in Wiktionary; mention of the term in Friends and Beevis & Butthead wouldn't seem to meet any of the four criteria for Attestation. If it were sent over to Wiktionary, it would be likely challenged there by people who know much more than I do; in that event, it would be like "passing the buck" to Wiktionary GestaltG 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The term under consideration fails the Wiktionary criteria: (1) it is not clearly in widespread use, (2) it is not used in a well-known work, (3) it doesn't appear in a refereed academic journal, and (4) it is not used in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (as far as i know).  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 20:36Z 
 * Whether a word is a slang word, vulgar or otherwise, is irrelevant as far as the Wiktionary inclusion criteria are concerned. You are conflating two different things, by the way.  Whether this word satisfies the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion is not the same as whether this specific article should be transwikified to Wiktionary.  Sometimes words will satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but Wiktionary already has articles, or simply could do better (than the dictionary articles mis-placed in Wikipedia) from a standing start.  Uncle G 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Pogoman 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism/worthless. Incognito 05:16, 5 January 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.