Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn Straight


 * 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. Chetblong T C 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn Straight

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by author, who said "I just need a day to get it all together", but has not edited the article for over 10 days. It seems to me just another expression of emphatic agreement, like "Too right!" or "You can say that again!"; I have done some searching, but I can't see any basis for an article which is more than a one-line dicdef. It is already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) *Strong Keep. JuJube, "good faith goes out the window" when I don't have time to finish what I started? How is this article, if I, or anyone else, takes the time to expand it any different than Shuckin' and jivin'? I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So why is it neccesarily incumbent that I expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted? If I take a month to expand the article, does that make the knowledge which would be conveyed in the article less credible than if I expand it in a week? If I work at a slower pace, does that make me a bad faith editor? Personally, I don't think so. I find the comments above somewhat personal and disrespectful. I understand the concerns about the article. I stubbed it, and added the example of Shuckin' and jivin' to the talk page to provide an example of where I want to take this. If someone would like to help me do this, I would appreciate it. However, simply trying to delete a valid contribution to the encyclopedia because the author is too busy to get the research done seems a little extreme. Avayafone (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and also WP:NOT Bardcom (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Rooot (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. EJF (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete? Damn straight.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NAD.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn straight I'm voting Delete. Good faith goes out the window when the author says "I'll improve it" then leaves. JuJube (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The term is of Australian origin" Damn unsourced.  Delete Mandsford (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FURTHER I see the term as corresponding to other such things found under Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. I encourage everyone to take a look at this category, because it includes very similar articles to what I wish to create. Avayafone (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The key distinction is well expressed in this sentence from WP:STUB:


 * A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase.


 * Some of the articles in the stub category you point to pass that test and some don't; in any case What about article X is not a valid defence. We are discussing this article, and I find it hard to see how it could be developed to an encyclopedia article in the sense above. Shuckin' and jivin' is to some extent about the activity, not just about the words. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After some helpful insight from JohnCD here, and on my talk page, I see how this article is unsuited now. I am dropping my opposition to the deletion of the article. Avayafone (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per DICTIONARY. --Sturm 18:18, 24 February 2008 (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.