Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berk


 * 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 since it's already on wiktionary. Daniel Case 03:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Berk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is nothing but a dictionary entry without citation. Contested prod. If this is to pass AfD, it needs to pass WP:NEO or demonstrate that the word has a historical background. Citations are needed to verify the meaning of the word. The article would need encyclopedic content beyond a simple definition. Until(1 == 2) 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there are no other AfD's for this one, so I nuked the list. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki if a source is found. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted to an older version which included sources for the meaning and clearly demonstrating that it isn't a neologism. I'm unsure as to whether it should be deleted or not. It's not much more than a definition, though perhaps the etymology is interesting enough to merit an article. I'd be tempted to merge/redirect to cunt, although this might unnecessarily shock the unaware. --Cherry blossom tree 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The online reference does not support the text of the article beyond the mere definition, does anyone have access to the other source? Until(1 == 2) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither source is online. I'm not sure what you mean. --Cherry blossom tree 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to dig: Until(1 == 2) 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That link states "1930s: from Cockney rhyming slang Berkeley Hunt, for cunt" and the article agrees with all of this. --Cherry blossom tree 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is all it says, the rest of the article is original research(unless that offline source supports it, that is why I asked if anyone had access to it). Until(1 == 2) 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you mean the source does not support all of the article but contradicts none of it. That is a big difference. Also there is a big difference between information that is not presently cited and original research. Original research is purely attempting to advance novel theories either with or without citations. --Cherry blossom tree 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have clarified my wording. And information presented without verification needs to be assumed to be OR until shown otherwise(where did it come from? Some guy?). But as I said, the offline source may hold this info, which is why I asked if anyone had access to it. Until(1 == 2) 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki  (to Wiktionary), Regardless of whether sources are there or not it fails WP:NOT Na uf ana  :  talk  00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' as a dictionary entry -- Whpq 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary Giggy  UCP 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - a note to all those !voting transwiki: wiktionary already has an entry for Berk, and none of this information from this article is substantiated with any sourcing. -- Whpq 12:11, 13 July 2007 (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.