Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulge (masculinity)


 * 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulge (masculinity)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A neologism sourced to urbandictionary.com. Verges on G3 territory. Not notable and not likely to become notable either. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is indeed quite close to blatant vandalism. Pichpich (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note This "male camel toe" is also known as a "moose knuckle".--Coin945 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The user insists on creating the same page in Persian Wiki and argues that when such a page exists in English Wiki, then notability is clear! -- Nojan (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: fully agree with Shearonink; totally unencyclopaedic. — Hebrides (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from being an unsourced neologism, falling under WP:DICDEF, my understanding is that the word "basket" is much more widely used to describe this concept.  Therefore no point in transwikiing it anywhere.  Ubelowme U  Me  20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it's G3-able (I've heard the term before, so it's not like Eglov made it up), it does fall under WP:DICDEF, and it has no reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. No encyclopedic value. --Artene50 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2012 (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.