Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT slang terms


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

List of LGBT slang terms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia not a dictionary. There is encyclopedic article LGBT slang. word list belongs to wiktionary -No.Altenmann >t 15:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I would like to see a lot more citations, but I think this list has strong encyclopedic value and could be a very useful encyclopedia page. Cpuser20 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Wiktionary does not allow lists, and this has value as a list. (Although individual terms could also be in Wiktionary.) I give this a weak rating because it is very temporal - slang comes and goes out of date quickly, and meanings change. Slang can also be limited to a small cohort, and therefore meanings can change from one "village" to another. It will only take a few months of neglect for this list to become less useful.LaMona (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails #3 of WP:NOT.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The words on this list can be added to Wiktionary, and a category for English LGBT slang terms can be created there too, if anyone has the inclination. I notice that Wiktionary already has a category for English LGBT-related terms (not limited to slang): wikt:Category:en:LGBT. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wikipedia is replete with lists of word meanings: Glossary of literary terms, List of English words of Yiddish origin, List of English words of Dutch origin, List of computer term etymologies, List of terms relating to algorithms and data structures, List of portmanteaus, Glossary of blogging, Glossary of philosophy, Glossary of classical physics... you get my point. If we are going to purge all glossaries and word lists from the Wikipedia, fine. Otherwise, I would to hear why the proposer feels this list should be singled out for deletion over all the many, many others. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Deleting this argument does not mean we have to delete others. You still need to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. While there is a good argument that List_of_terms_relating_to_algorithms_and_data_structures fails WP:DICTIONARY since it's derived from the entries in an actual dictionary, it has at least a source establishing the list as possibly notable. This particular list does not. Also, none of your examples are a list of slurs. This is a list of slang insults against people like "Poo pusher", "Tit gobbler", "Muff muncher", "Cock gobbler", "girlyboy". Surely it's reasonable to have a higher criteria for an article which entirely consists of a list of insults to people. What next? A list of slurs against conservatives or liberals? Or maybe a list of racial slurs? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary to list slang terms in use. Second Quantization (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are making an argument that the list needs to be cleaned up, a position I agree with. However, that is nowhere near an argument for deleting the article entirely. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 06:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good lists discuss notable items useful in understanding other encyclopedic topics in wikipedia. Other lists contain historically important items, with etymologies and references where they are discussed. Still others are in fact lists of wikipedia articles and are useful for navigation of a topic. All this gives them encyclopedic values. Now, what encyclopedic value do items of the discussed list have? If there are a few, important for understanding of LGBT culture, this may be covered in "LGBT slang" page, with proper references. -No.Altenmann >t 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There is a criteria for list notability: WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". What we are looking for, therefore, is a book by a reliable publisher listing homophobic slurs in a significant way.
 * "I think this list has strong encyclopedic value", isn't an argument for keep; it's merely saying the conclusion you would like.
 * "Wiktionary does not allow lists, and this has value as a list." This advances no argument. It does not matter what wikitionary doesn't allow, it doesn't mean we should allow it. WP:ADDSVALUE
 * Second Quantization (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is LGBT slang, not specifically slurs. And Glossaries of Sexuality, Coleman Juliein A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume IV: 1937-1984. "The earliest glossaries of gay slang were produced by psychiatrists trying to improve communication with their patients or to develop a diagnostic tool. Later glossaries offer keys to the secret world of homosexuality and defy convention in celebrating gay love. Demonized by Cold War associations with communism, users of gay slang are also depicted as agents of the anti-Christ by right-wing Christian fundamentalists." There is also Fantabulosa: A dictionary of polari and gay slang, P Baker - 2004 - Bloomsbury Publishing, Gay Talk: A Sometimes Outrageous: Dictionary of Gay Slang, B Rodgers - 1972 - Paragon Book, Mother clap's molly house: the gay subculture in England, 1700-1830, R Norton - 1992 - GMP London, New perspectives on language and sexual identity, L Morrish, E Morrish, H Sauntson - 2007 - Palgrave Macmillan, Gay and Lesbian Language, Don Kulick, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29, (2000), pp. 243-285, Published by: Annual Reviews. Gay Slang Lexicography: A Brief History and a Commentary on the First Two Gay Glossaries, Gary Simes, From: Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, Number 26, 2005, pp. 1-159 | 10.1353/dic.2005.0004. "His A Dictionary of Australian Underworld Slang (OUP, 1993) resulted from work being done for a larger project, a historical dictionary of the language of sex and sexuality in Modern English (since 1800). Another offshoot of that work, Australian and New Zealand Sexual Language: An Historical Dictionary is ready for publication. He has contributed to encyclopaedias and other reference works and published articles on lexicography, sexual language, and the history of sexuality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masioka (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide" seems to cut pretty much straight through this page, which is merely a list, more properly described as some phrasebook or dictionary, of slang words. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to LGBT slang. I don't buy the WP:Dictionary argument because this isn't trying to define words (which, btw is what a dictionary does).  This encyclopedia is rife with absolutely ridiculous lists of absolutely ridiculous topics, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does apply here.  Those lists are not sufficient reason to keep this one (though I do wish someone would go through and nominate many of them for AfD).  However, I think the best answer for this one is the same that was done for List of sexual slang which was to redirect it to the article Sexual slang.  The list of terms themselves are transient and regional, so if someone wants to do an article on the etymology of particular terms (as spelled out in WP:DICTIONARY), they can probably find a better audience in the LGBT slang article than simply a laundry list of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertium (talk • contribs)
 * Merge to LGBT slang and trim heavily (maybe to the point that I should just say redirect). Ansh666 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to LGBT slang as most are listed there anyway. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, this list has 100-200 words with by far the majority not being at the article LGBT slang. In fact very few are there. Also slang terms are not as temporary as was suggested above. Some of these terms date back at least 70 years or more. Many of them have a history of their meanings changing with the region and time period. And some are brought back into use. Masioka (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Maybe I'd expect to read something like this on Urban dictionary or Uncyclopedia, but an actual encyclopedia? No. —Frosty ☃ 10:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think I can just throw WP:OR into here randomly. The list seems to be gratuitously exhaustive. Knight of the Pork Sword, Airy Dairy Fairy, She who drinks from the furry cup, Lick-a-lotta-puss? Really? What actual merit do any of those selected terms have? The same can be said about at least 80% of the list. There are certain terms like Dyke, Faggot, Bear, and Queen that are not gratuitous; those (along with a few others) have been discussed extensively, and they can fare well in LGBT slang or other appropriate articles. The rest of the terms look like they were caught in a trawler's net that swept across every slang dictionary. Including Randy Bumgardener and Shit stabber doesn't improve the project. mol  uɐɯ  03:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are 36 articles on individual slang terms in Category:LGBT slang and its subcategory, so even if this list were limited to only notable terms there would be enough to merit a standalone list as a complement to the category per WP:CLN, and NOTDICT does not in any way restrict our internal indexing of articles just because those articles happen to be about words. But there's also no requirement for all list entries to be notable, particularly here where listing terms that are at least significant would be informationally integral to LGBT slang per WP:LISTPURP. So we have indisputably valid entries (i.e., the notable ones) and a notable parent topic grouping them (contra the completely unfounded LISTN deletion !votes above; see sources in parent article to show that LISTN is actually satisfied here). Which only leaves us with the problem of what inclusion threshold to maintain, which, given the previous, is a matter for ordinary discussion and editing to resolve, not a basis at all for deletion of the list as a whole. Simply requiring secondary sourcing to verify the usage of the term and its meaning might maintain adequate standards, though editors might decide to restrict inclusion to those terms verified in particular sources recognized as more authoritative. At any rate, that's not our problem to solve here in this AFD. So to recap, keep per WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and WP:LISTN, and deletion !voters should be reminded that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, educational and encyclopedic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2014 (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.