Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruit (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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus, and the rewrite has further compounded the issue.  Daniel  07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fruit (slang)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This article is a textbook example of a dictionary definition. It's also unreferenced; there's no indication (not even an attempt to claim) that the term is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Powers T 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) *Delete This should just redir to Gay Slang, which already has a table of definitions. The "it's a definition" argument is not moot: WP:NOT. The "other definitions exist" argument is moot: WP:OTHERSTUFF. --- tqbf 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Dicdef and is never going to be anything more than that. This article is precisely what Wiktionary is for. Tx17777 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, with a mention that this slang term, while notable, is getting outdated. --Blanchardb 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Nonsense, this term has been used for decades both as a derogatory slur and also reclaimed by LGBT people. I will add refs when I have some time. I'm still on break from fighting homophobic vandals so this seems to fit right in. Benjiboi 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The matter being discussed here is not whether or not the term is notable. Except for the nominator, everybody here so far agrees with you that it is. The problem is, can this article be expanded so that it will have more than just a definition of the term? Simply adding references will not address this issue, even though it will satisfy the nominator's objection. For my part, I'm talking about transferring the article to a dictionary, not deleting it outright. --Blanchardb 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Expanding should hardly be hard. A quick Google book search using fruitcake turns up nearly 300 hits while Google scholar has 70+. Benjiboi 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Simply adding references" will not satisfy my objection. Please don't assume.  Powers T 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you don't like the entry and everyone knows it, congrats. The prod to delete was removed and now you've AfD'd it so the stub will have to grow immediately. I have no aspirations of your objections being erased by the work that will take place nor do I expect your appreciation of LGBT culture and history to deepen. It would be a nice benefit but I will not hold my breath. Benjiboi 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions on my motivations is unproductive. You know nothing of my appreciation of LGBT culture and history.  Nothing.  Powers T 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a disinterested third party can I suggest that nobody cares and that you two should take this to Talk? --- tqbf  21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is full of "definitions" so that argument is moot. The term is notable, and still in use today both as a derogatory term and as a term of endearment by LGBT people. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This term would not be appropriate for the gay slang article, as that is an article about slang that gay people use, and this is a slang term that homophobes use. To suggest placing it there would make as much sense as suggesting a merge between ni**er and African American. I sincerely doubt you would find that a good fit. Jeffpw 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From above, the term is "a term of endearment by LGBT people". I don't see why your distinction can't be drawn in Gay Slang, or why it means every "negative" slang word needs its own article. --- tqbf 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that its use as a term of endearment is a way of reclaiming the word from its unsavory past. Much as African Americans have reclaimed that other offensive word, which has its own article, as you may have noticed. Jeffpw 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike this dicdef, the n-word article is extensively sourced, to sources discussing the word itself. --- tqbf  22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're going in circles, tqbf. IN my first comment, I mentioned that Benjiboi already said he could expand it and source it, so that it wouldn't be a dicdef. I get the feeling you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Jeffpw 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you're right or you're wrong. I already voted delete. I'm just saying, there's a world of difference between the article you cited and the one up for AfD. This article can be merged. --- tqbf 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The ni**er article developed over at least 5.5 years whereas this one now has less than 5 days. Perhaps we should not use AfD as clean-up and indeed try improving articles before deleting them per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, this article has existed for five months, not five days. And the point is that the word is just not as notable as the word "nigger" or the word "fuck" is.  If it was just an issue of development, I'd tag it as such; instead I'm arguing that, as an encyclopedia, we should only have articles on words that have distinct, exceptional encyclopedic value beyond their base meanings.  No amount of development can change that assessment, although finding some good references would be a good start to establishing this word's notability.  Powers T 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I was referring to the AfD process being five days for any substantial changes to be made. Benjiboi 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article can certainly be expanded to describe the history of the word, and I'm sure Benjiboi will find other facets which will educate. That is the point of this project, isn't it? Jeffpw 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Word histories belong in Wiktionary. This is an encyclopedia; our articles are properly about non-word concepts, not words, with the exception of a few words that have extensive notability beyond their definitions.  Powers T 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pure Hogwash, which itself is a word that redirects to nonsense.. words, on Wikipedia. Oh the humanity! --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word Hogwash redirects to Nonsense because they're the same concept. They are different words and have different entires on Wiktionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Powers T 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, source and expand. This has potential as an article. Artw 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any dictionary word could have potential as an article, especially if you redirect all related terms to it. So, Hogwash. And The. Which is, ironically, a far better article. --- tqbf  03:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hogwash has no references, I imagine that should be deleted immediately and there is no The article - it's a redirect. Benjiboi 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hogwash is a redirect, too. Powers T 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly an article that can be expanded and given a larger cultural context that a mere definition can not. Cherry picking those guidelines that support deletion, but ignoring guidelines that allow its inclusion makes the argument weaker (reread those links that are so readily whipped out when it suits, but this time read the whole guideline not just the part the supports your view).  After an editor said he would work on this article, then we should give him a chance to do so.  Responding that it can't or shouldn't be done is quite frankly not an argument, but petulance.  Jacksinterweb 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Terminology of homosexuality (the term is already listed there). - jc37 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary section break
There seems to be a perception here that this nomination was performed with malice toward the LBGT community. My attempts at explaining otherwise have been thoroughly and inexplicably rebuffed, but I can only assure everyone with the utmost sincerity that there was no malice intended. I fully support gay rights efforts and abhor the discrimination and prejudice they face daily. This AfD has nothing to do with my feelings on homosexuality. It is purely based on the policy that clearly states that dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. Powers T 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thg policy also cleary makes exceptions: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness" Exceptions have been made before (former perjoratives such as "queer" and "dyke" being just two), and it is not just the "other stuff" that has slipped through the eagle eyes of those who only interpret half of WP:NOT.  An editor said he would work on the article. We should take him at his word and give him time to expand it to an article that can pass muster.  I take Powers' word that his/her motives aren't anti LGBT, but the absence of ill intent does not make the argument right.  WP allows for a language that constantly changes and its guidelines reflect that by having flexibility written in.  Hiding behind parts of WP:NOT or Otherstuff (and ignoring other guidelines) does not serve WP well.  Jacksinterweb 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, there's an obvious consensus forming around "keep" here, but the original AfD wasn't crazy talk: it was an unloved (Jul'07) stub article that very much appears to be redundant with (currently more useful) Gay Slang. The most vocal proponent of it is the article's original author. If this AfD debate results in an excellent article --- as Benjiboi's draft clearly seems to be on a path towards --- then we've all won. It's a bit creepy that LtPowers felt the need to assert not being a homophobe. --- tqbf  15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm subject to the "doth protest too much" syndrome here, but Benjiboi's assertion that I have a shallow appreciation of "LGBT culture and history" compelled me to set the record straight. No pun intended.  Powers T 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:72.68.121.10 removed. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm combining physical notes, a computer document and s-l-o-w-l-y getting items added. I have to go to bed for a bit but a very rough draft can be found here. Benjiboi 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is clearly a notable term. More reliable sources and expansion should probably occur, but a deletion to remedy this is rather absurd. — Save_Us _ 229  02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki: It's a dic-def plain and simple, notability doesn't come into it.  WebHamste r  03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Fruitcake is also slang for a crazy person, as in "S/he's nuttier than a fruitcake". At least in the US and maybe the UK? This was very popular in the area I grew up, and as far as I knew had nothing to do with homosexuals. I didn't understand why a fruitcake meant a nutty person then. I thought it was because fruitcakes taste nasty. Who really likes to eat fruitcake, anyway? I mean really. Isn't there some type of joke about getting one for Christmas? Even fruitloops can mean offbeat/crazy, as in "loopy". Maybe that one is a regional thang though. I dunno. So there's more info that can be added to justify an article, re: origins. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF, not really notable on its own, and the listing in Terminology of homosexuality is suficient enough coverage. Tarc 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I had hoped to do a basic rewrite and post results by now however I find trailing new leads and lack of sleep is not helping so I need to take a break. Knowing that it's still in drafting stage and not all the wikilinks have been vetted please feel free to visit the latest draft. Benjiboi 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. article re-written. Benjiboi 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn you have done mighty fine work to this article, Benji. It went from nothing to a full-on piece of work. Rather than nominating it for AfD, maybe the nominator should have considered putting the work into it himself. You've proved deletion isn't always the best thing if only someone would take the time and do some work. Good on ya and thanks for all of your hard work on this article. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering I don't have access to most of those sources, I don't see how I could have even begun to duplicate this feat. Powers T 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; now that Benjiboi has rewritten the article to address the history of the term and its cultural significance, this is an encyclopedia article and not a dictionary entry. Allstarecho, I would not fault LtPowers for the original nomination; it was at the time a good candidate for transwiki, and I honestly would not have suspected that an article like this was possible. This one is an obvious keeper now. Closing admin: please take note of the particular arguments of the delete !votes prior to this rewrite (03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)), and consider whether they are now addressed. ··coe l acan 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment if kept this article should either be moved to "Fruit (gay slang)" or expanded to encompass all non-gay usages. Rather than repeat my entry on the article's talk page I'll just point interested editors to it. This article is LGBT biased and shouldn't be as its title does not reflect this.   WebHamste r  12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there slang uses of this word that are not gay? If so, please point them out, as I--and perhaps others--are entirely unaware of them. Jeffpw 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several uses that are cockney rhyming slang. I've listed a couple on the article's talk page.  WebHamste r  13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the research (what could be done within 2-3 days) what I saw was nearly every use of fruit slangs evolving into slurs against LGBT people that were later reclaimed by same and now both usages continue to exist like other words for LGBT people. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I considered whether two fruit slang articles made sense and it didn't, perhaps someday but for now it seems more appropriate to try to encompass verifiable usages in one article and, if possible, show how they are related. I replied to your talk page concerns and will summarized here as well - sections on fruitcake and Cockney rhyming slang (fruit = chum) was the only example I could find) have been added. Benjiboi 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. First, I wholeheartedly applaud Benjiboi's efforts in researching this topic.  Such efforts were far above and beyond that required; merely finding sources which demonstrate the notability of a subject is usually sufficient for AfD purposes.  However, I remain unfortunately unconvinced that this particular term is notable enough for an encyclopedia article.  I will admit that my bar for such content is very high, but I believe I am entitled to my opinion on that matter.  To explain in more detail:
 * The first paragraph, the lede, is all right as far as it goes, but the mere fact that a slur has been "reclaimed" as a term of affection is not notable. "Nigger" is the obvious model here, but that word is notable for other reasons.  Further, the references used to demonstrate that the word has been reclaimed are inadequate.  The first one (marked (3), the Goodwin book) specifically mentions only "queer" and "faggot" as being reclaimed; "fruit" is, at best, implied.  The second one (marked (4), nighttours.com) says nothing about the reclamation of the word and is merely an example of said reclamation.  Using it as a source for the claim "Many modern pop culture references within the gay nightlife like 'Fruit Machine' and 'Fruit Packers' have been appropriated for reclaiming usage..." strikes me as original research.
 * Yes, I simply ran out of time and was compelled to post the latest draft for this AfD process. I appreciate specific constructive criticism and will try to figure out the best ways to address them asap between rewriting and references. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The first section after the lede starts off with a discussion of Polari, the notability of which is not in question. (I note that the Polari article doesn't mention the word "fruit" as having entered mainstream slang, even though it clearly has.)  Later, it gets into a detailed etymology of "fruit" in this sense.  It's difficult to tell how well supported it is by the sources, however, as most of them are books not available online.  Usage of such sources is perfectly fine, of course, but it makes it hard to use them to verify the statements in the article.  Assuming good faith on the part of Benjiboi, though, the problem still remains that this is just etymology.  It makes no attempt to assert the importance of the word, just its history.  Etymologies remain the province of a dictionary, last I checked.  (I also believe that the conclusion "...so transferring the meaning of fruitcake, nutty, to someone who is deemed crazy may have seemed rational at the time," needs a source but that may just be nitpicking.)
 * Hi, Those books are available online but apparently not universally. I'll add this to this list of items that need to be sourced. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rest of the article is merely a series of examples of usage. In my opinion, examples of usage are not sufficient to demonstrate that a term has notability.  Others are free to disagree, which is why we have these discussions.
 * In short, I could perhaps still be convinced if someone could point out which of the sources on the revised page specifically address the word "fruit", and not just as part of the larger topic of gay slang and slurs, but by itself as a notable topic. -- Powers T 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every usage example can be referenced as an example of a slur against LGBT people as well as a reclaimed usage by LGBT people and I will attempt to do so. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wield WP:N as a terrifying weapon. My storied history of ruthlessly crushing hundreds of pages and making grown men and women cry has taught me how to swing this mace most effectively. WP:N's most glorious battles, the anticipation of which makes the steel cry out for blood, are those when the enemy is neutrally written promotional material, which the blade of WP:CSD cannot cut. It is unwise to take up this bludgeon against a term that is probably known to a majority of native English speakers. ··coe l acan 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Total ridiculousness. Benji has taken this article from nothing to an in-depth piece and you still aren't happy. Shameful. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We now know how you feel. --- tqbf  01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With due respect for your creative metaphor, I must point out that merely being "known to a majority of native English speakers" is not sufficient to establish notability; elsewise every word from "The" to "Here" to "Place" to "Frozen" to "Regardless" would have articles. Powers T 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My point rather is that "WP:N-notability" is not something I look for on a topic like this, nor do I believe others should automatically assume it's a relevant measure. There are instances where any guideline does not apply and this is one. Some words sustain coverage beyond their etymologies, and some do not. I would consult a dictionary if I wanted to know more about "regardless"; I would not imagine that there's more to say than the etymology. Slang, though, often has quite a history, and as we can see, this term is one that support a substantial encyclopedia entry. It can't be transwiki'd to Wiktionary now, and it's not the sort of promotional material that WP:N was designed to handle. There's nothing else to do but keep it. Another way of looking at it is to say that all words indeed are notable, and that's why we have Wiktionary, but some words support whole encyclopedia articles. As tqbf says below, "WP:DICDEF is there to prevent articles that can never grow past being a stub" and Wiktionary is there to receive those articles. In noting all the above, I am not conceding any lack of "WP:N-notability" here, nor arguing for it; I am explaining why I'm not using that measure at all. Look at the subtypes for WP:N. What are they? All promotional material, because that's the purpose of WP:N. The only exception is "numbers" (because numbers, unlike English, are unbounded) and if we had "WikiNumbers" we'd just transwiki the perpetual stubs. Your opposition is noted, but it's now failing to sway the community over to your view. I've been in the saddle before, and I assure you you're welcome to keep riding this honorable steed, but you might get a more profitable return on your energy elsewhere. ··coe l acan 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misunderstanding your point; I think your otherwise fine metaphor obscured it a bit. =)  Anyway, I disagree that there is a class of articles not subject to Wikipedia's notability requirements; our guidelines cover much more than just promotional material, and have been used to circumscribe allowable content in many different subject areas.  I see no reason language should not be the same.  Regardless, this is an area on which we can disagree.  My points above remain&mdash;primarily, that mere examples of usage do not prove notability.  While I may be beating a dead horse, I worry that the impressive array of sources Benjiboi has assembled might blind discussion participants to the quality of said sources in accomplishing the goal of proving notability.  We could add hundreds of verifiable, reliable sources for the word "the" and they still may not be enough to prove its notability for an encyclopedia article.  Regardless, I hope my constructive criticism above remains useful.  Powers T 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right you are to worry about others being blinded by Benjiboi's words! Thank goodness we have your wisdom to counter prosaic trickery.  Sure the words you used seem patronizing and arrogant, but sometimes you need to be rude to get through to the less intelligent.  And indeed we have learned from your constructive criticsim.  We learned grace is for suckers.  We learned arrogance may not always work, but it sure makes us feel important.  We learned that if we feel we might not get our way, we can call everyone else idiots and that's the same as being right.  I would send you a barnstar or something if I were not still blinded by Benjiboi's words.GptVestal (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep (changed from above) - WP:DICDEF is there to prevent articles that can never grow past being a stub. Whatever the problems of this new version might be, stubbiness is not one of them. --- tqbf  15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: I had left my opinion off because, really, the this version was simply terrible. Having seen the current version, with 40+ references and ~14K char in well written length, it's clear it's a keeper. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  23:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: The only argument against it seems to be that it is more of a dictionary entry. I disagree. The article goes into signifiantly more depth than just a definition, it is well referenced and otherwise meets the qualifications of a Wikipedia entry. I would say the objections are bogus. TechBear (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't originally. The AfD motivated Benjiboi to rescue the article. I doubt it would have been AfD'd in its current state. --- tqbf  02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Everything else is outside the scope of this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Issues of notability are not outside the scope of the AfD, as I brought them up with the nomination. Powers T 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article substantially improved since nomination.  Good job.  I too would have brought it here in it's initial state, thinking that there wasn't much to improve, but here we are.  The article is a good start at an interesting, encyclopedic work, and can hardly be argued to be a dictionary definition any longer. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 15:24, 17 November 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.