Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gropecunt Lane


 * 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 keep. I'm closing this one early because there's an obvious and overwhelming consensus. Gamaliel 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane
Gropecunt Lane should be Deleted immediately. Its sources are dubious, its subject matter prurient and its historical relevance negligible. Totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Interesting that the first result on a Google search are the article itself. Very little to support it of academic quality. Also relevant to consider the image of the "Lane" has been proposed for deletion and will be deleted. KarlJetter 01:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The bona fides of the main author of the article Coqsportif should also be considered. He has been involved in serial edit wars including over placing the Gropecunt Lane image in an absurd number of articles. KarlJetter 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. This discussion is about the article. android  79  03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - An infamous British street name and one which links through Wiki to topics of language, culture, society and geography. A notable and historical street name dok 10:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Singular = is and Plural = are. Article is one of the most frequently citating of any I've seen on Wikipedia. Every sentence is supported by a source. I assume good faith but it is difficult to assume it in this case. Coqsportif 01:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly valid (if somewhat unusual) historical subject. -- Kirill Lokshin 01:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Historical. The OED cites it, why shouldn't we?  Gamaliel 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The London Gropecunt Lane is an undisputed entity found in historical records .  The sources listed in the article certainly aren't the best but this can be remedied by research and editing. --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting historical footnote. Lullabye Muse 02:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (Peter Ackroyd, "London The Biography", Vintage, London, 2001, p371) Surgeonsmate 02:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting, amusing. android  79  02:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; My sanity needs this article | Celcius 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - as per above. Notable place, interesting history. - Hahnchen 02:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This VfD is merely some old-fashioned type shying at mention of a "rude word". Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Historical, factual, notable, interesting. MCB 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I consider the given sources reliable when it concerns something as trivial as a streetname. Anyone in the cities in question could go dig up historical archives and prove whether it's true. Those papers wouldn't put their credibility on the line over such a thing. And if the OED mentions it, it's good enough for me. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - a famous example of how street names became more PC over the years. The article itself could do with a lot of improvement, though. Bluap 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs work (for example, it cites research without giving even a minimal citation, it makes unverificable claims about extant thoroughfares with the name), and is being disruptively edited by Coqsportif, but it's a perfectly reasonable article in itself. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Important historical aspect of London life. WMMartin 10:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable topic, just a shame it's not there any more. Proto t c 11:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems factual enough. Could do with source checking. DJ Clayworth 14:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Snickering keep, notable topic, though I have to admit until I saw Android79 and Gamaliel, and before reading the article, I thought this had to be an army of sock puppets voting . JDoorjam 14:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. chocolateboy 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The lane in Oxford is still there Proto, now called "Magpie Lane" and it was called this (but just called Grope Lane in polite company). Alf 20:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two reliable references to it. --Carnildo 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, bad faith nomination? - ulayiti (talk)  22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. You might be right ulayiti about bad faith nom.Moriori 23:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * A very obvious keep, I think. james gibbon  23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and verifiable. Qwghlm 09:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. But it still needs work, and more sensible and reliable sources for some of the claims. Paul B 11:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if it were an urban myth, it's such a pervasive one that it still needs a mention. Hughcharlesparker 13:57:35, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Keep as an interesting footnote to English language and streetnaming. --Agamemnon2 14:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and noteworthy. PlainSight 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Misguided, ill-informed, bad-faith nomination. Bhumiya/Talk 19:17, 22 August 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.