Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Isles profanity


 * 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. --Tito xd (?!?) 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

British Isles profanity
Delete. A hopelessly incomplete list of 'profanities' with no scholarly or encyclopaedic analysis. Listcruft, slang, dicdefs...be gone! Eddie.willers 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, like Finnish profanity. Alternatively, categorize by splitting into separate articles for each word. Kappa 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. but Finnish profanity discusses the usage and some history of each word, while this article is just a list of taboo words and euphemisms with no context. - Dalbury (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep... but clean it up! Jamie 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please we have other profanities like this Yuckfoo 01:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not convinced "British Isles" is a very good delineation, but I'll have to lean towards keep in the hope that it can be cleaned up into something at least marginally similar to the Finnish profanity page mentioned above. Turnstep 02:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly move to a better title per Turnstep. --Quasipalm 03:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not encyclopedic. Pintele Yid 06:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. People keep writing articles about various individual profanity words, such a list provides a suitable merge target. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is bordering on nonsense. Assuming the article is kept, lets make sure we keep an eye on it and resubmit as an AfD should the list not be soon improved. Marcus22 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to something like "British profanity" or "Commonwealth profanity", and get rid of all the empty sections. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to British profanity to stay in line with classification by language and not geographical area (Finnish profanity). Only make separate articles for the words that can be discussed beyond dicdeffism. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "British" isn't a language, and this list apparently intends to discuss profanity in all the languages of the British Isles - so if you want it classified by language and not geographical area, you're voting to split the article, not to rename it. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I thought at first that the string of "keep"'s above must be sock puppets. We already have profanities well covered in Profanity and category:Profanity. Surely all the words listed so far are universal throughout the English-swearing world. I do not think there are many regional variations worth noting and this article fails to note them anyway. -- RHaworth 11:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with User:RHaworth - Dalbury (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Replication of material covered in several places. We have "List of" X profanity, "British" by another name profanity, etc.  Please, kiddies looking for "shit" in the dictionary is one thing, but cross-indexing "shit" to twelve different locations is another.  Geogre 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete silly schoolboy toilet humour page. This is just a bit of sniggering nonsense and has no encyclopaedic merit at all.  It makes no attempt to discuss the origins or distinct usages of those words characteristic of British usage, and it is, in short, complete bollocks. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per RHaworth --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, more listcruft... besides, there is absolutely nothing of value here that could not be added to Profanity.--Isotope23 17:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously. Dottore So 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is supposed to be a bloody encyclopedia, not a list of useless lists. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --hydnjo talk 20:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, and duplicates existing articles like profanity. A list of words does not an encyclopedia article make. CDC   (talk)  22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, simple. Melchoir 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As Cdc said, a list of words, even a list of words with definitions, does not an encyclopedia article make. The Literate Engineer 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because if it were "complete" and contained "encyclopedic analysis" then it would be worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles shouldn't be deleted just because they're rough. Bryan 00:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not only is this a list of words and their definitions (WP is not a dictionary), whose only possible expansion is the addition of etymology (WP is STILL not a dictionary), it's a DUPLICATE of other lists elsewhere. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete In principle, a good topic for an article, especially the differences between British and North American usage. However, this article is profoundly incomplete and badly formed. Best to start from scratch. D e nni &#9775; 02:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per others, and because it's useless, unencyclopaedic, listcruft, and refers to a linguistic question by a very wide geographical area composing two very distinct countries rather than by a language variety or linguistically cohesive region as would be more logical. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all unverified -- red stucco 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per RHaworth and geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 14:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Certainly clean up.  Certainly don't delete.  And the ideal thing for this article, in its cleanup, is that it become more than just a list.  It should even be more than just a glossary.  It should have not only definitions and etymology, but comments on the social context, including in which regions terms are used, at what times they have been considered more, and less, objectionable, whether they are more common in certain social groups, when they began to be carried in mainstream media (TV, radio, newspapers, &c.), when they were and weren't printed by mainstream publishing houses, equivalents in foreign languages, how they have spread to English in other parts of the world, how their definitions have changed in different places or even in the same places, &c.  Profanity is an integral part of most languages; British profanity is a fascinating part of English.  The topic deserves a good Wikipedia article.  The article in its present state is a messy list.  The list needs serious work; and the result of the serious work needs to stay on Wikipedia, not be thrown out.  When your hands are messy, you wash them; you don't cut them off and consider maybe getting some new ones in the future.  President Lethe 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unorganised article, unencyclopedic. *drew 22:29, 15 November 2005 (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.