Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faggot (slang)


 * 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   keep. Blatant consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro(talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Faggot (slang)

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

Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. This article consists solely of dictionary information: definition, origin, etymology, and usage. In an encyclopedia, the entry for "faggot", as a synonym (however derogatory and offensive) for "homosexual", should the same as that for "homosexual", because they cover the same topic. We do not generally have separate entries for different words that refer to the same concept, and I see no reason (given the exclusively dictionary-oriented content of this article) to make an exception here. Powers T 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you going to nominate most of the topics in the LGBT slang template at the foot of the article too?  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I might, if this AfD succeeds. There's not much point otherwise, is there?  Powers T 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – An article that is well written – well sourced – properly in-line cited – informative - Has been the subject of numerous Scholarly works, as noted here ] and been around for almost 5 years is now being considered for AFD. Have I missed something. ShoesssS Talk 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've missed that this is a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article. "Faggot" means "homosexual"; someone looking up "faggot" in an encyclopedia -- someone who wants to know what a faggot is, and how they come to exist, and how many there might be, and what laws might affect them -- should be looking at the "homosexual" article.  Powers T 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Faggot != homosexual != gay. They are clearly different things with different usages and different histories. They no more mean the same than catholic == christian == zealot. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why is there no encyclopedic information here on faggots who are not homosexuals? (Or, if you mean to say that faggots are a strict subset of homosexuals, then on what makes faggot-homosexuals different than non-faggot homosexuals.)  Instead, the article talks about the word.  I would welcome an article on the concept of a faggot, if it is indeed significantly different from the concept of a homosexual person.  Powers T 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Homosexuals rarely identify as "faggots". But bigots often identify homosexuals as "faggots". Therefore the article on homosexuality isn't compatible with an article on "faggot" for merger or redirect (perhaps on Conservapedia, but not here where NPOV rules) and we can happily have both articles since they don't address the same subject other than in the minds of bigots. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So some people don't use the word, but the people who do use the word, use it to mean exactly the same thing as the word "homosexual". That's a textbook example of a synonym.  Powers T 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, people who do use the word mean it perjoratively (the subject of this article) whilst people who use homosexual mean it neutrally (the subject of homosexuality). This is just the same way we have an article on the n-word and an article on black people, without redirecting one to the other. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – No I didn't miss your implications.  What I am saying is that at least several hundred scholars, as noted in my link above, thought enough of the term to actually write books – papers and essays about it, not just relying on the dictionary term. I believe an encylopedia is for.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because the usage of a perjorative is not the same as the usage of the medical term is not the same as the usage of the common term. The history of a perjorative is not the same as the history of the medical term is not the same as the history of the common term. And a redirect from "faggot" to "homosexual" is an insult, whilst an article about the term "faggot" is what encyclopedias are for. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, articles about words are what dictionaries are for. That's why we don't have an article called Octopus (word).  Powers T 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've mistaken the disambiguation addition of "(slang)" for a definition in and of itself. The use of this word has a specific political history beyond what a dictionary would and should give. That's where an encyclopedia steps forward. Just because the article is about the usage of a word that is slang doesn't make it a dicdef article. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, what makes it a dicdef article is that there is nothing here except usage, definition, and etymology. There is no encyclopedic information on the word, only dictionary information.  Powers T 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept is indicative of a particular homophobic attitude, and eliminating the article on it would be an attempt to deny information on it.  Articles on the use and cultural implications of a word are encylopedic. DicDef only refers to minimal dictionary type information.  The relevant policy is NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew someone would trot that one out. No one's censoring anyone.  Get off your persecution horse and address the actual arguments I made.  Powers T 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles on the use and cultural implications of a word are encylopedic. DicDef only refers to minimal dictionary type information. It was there in the rest of DGG's response. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue. You are making the canonical mistake that our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy goes to great lengths to point out.  A dictionary article is an article that gives meanings, translations, etymologies, inflections, usage notes, synonyms, homonyms, pronunciations, antonyms, and so forth, for a word.  "dictionary" is not a synonym for "short".  This can be seen by looking at bush for example.  Our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy prohibits dictionary articles, not short articles.  This is our oldest official policy.  Please familiarize yourself with what it actually prohibits, and has prohibited since its very first version in August 2001.  Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In one sense, every article is an extended definition, and every article is "about a word"; only those ideas that can be named by words will ever have articles.  The dictionary definition policy is only about potential articles that can never be more than definitions.  And this obviously is already more than a dictionary style definition, and already contains a good deal of historical, literary, and cultural material.  The overextension of what the policy actually says is troubling, and I suggest that this be closed early. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Historical, literary, and cultural material is perfectly appropriate for a dictionary, especially one that is not paper. Powers T 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Historical, literary, and cultural material is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia article. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what, pray tell, distinguishes a dictionary article from an encyclopedia article? Powers T 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that, contrary to your belief, historical, literary, and cultural material is completely inappropriate for a dictionary, even a nonpaper one. This article has no business whatever at Wiktionary, and belongs here at Wikipedia. —Angr 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If that material is about a word, it is perfectly relevant to a dictionary entry on that word.  A comprehensive dictionary would include all of that information.  For an encyclopedia entry about a word, we need much more to justify it.  Otherwise, why not have an article on Octopus (word)?  It's been used plenty of times in historical, literary, and cultural contexts.  Powers T 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just obviously wrong. History of France and Agriculture in Senegal are not about words in the slightest.   The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy is not about short articles.  It is, as it goes to great lengths to explain, about dictionary articles.  Please read the policy.  It's been this way since 2001.  Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is not just defenition it includes historical information and social impact of the use of the word, which is encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; while I strongly dislike the word and what it has come to mean in the modern day, the term has a pretty long history behind it and meant something completely different upon creation. NSR 77  T 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fabulous Keep I just added four additional gay-oriented pop culture references to the article, including dialogue from The Boys in the Band and Midnight Cowboy. Like a certain N-word, this particular bit of the language is loaded with significant historic and sociological importance that lifts it beyond the dicdef domain. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep nom's comment to first commenter leads me to believe this is a WP:POINTy nomination. JuJube (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intent to "disrupt Wikipedia". The initial commenter asked me a loaded question and I responded in the only reasonable fashion.  Powers T 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-And no disrespect taken – The reason it comes to AFD is to discuss the merits of whether a piece does or does not deserve inclusion here at Wikipedia. An individual passionately expressing their opinion in a civil manner, either for or against, should never be considered as disruptive. ShoesssS Talk 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, not every article about a word fails WP:DICDEF. Consider, for example, the featured article Thou. WP:DICDEF only says that articles must be more than a mere dictionary definition, it never says that articles about words are forbidden. If this article said "Faggot is a derogatory slang word for a gay man" and nothing else, it would fail WP:DICDEF and have to be either transwikied or deleted. But it says a great deal more than that and so is an encyclopedia article. —Angr 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable to have an article about this specific word as a social phenomenon.  --Clay Collier (talk) 13:05, 2 December 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.