Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay slang words and phrases


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of gay slang words and phrases
Delete per explicit wikipedia policy: What Wikipedia is not, items ...is not  "Lists of such definitions" and "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Mukadderat 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies. This is just a hopelessly unsourced list. Wikipedia already has a a page on gay slang. Anything verifiable here should be merged there. Scorpiondollprincess 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - and add a message not to re-create the list at gay slang to the appropriate talk pages - too many violations of WP:NOT. Davodd 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but constructively. Carefully transfer ALL terms to Wiktionary, and only then get rid of this page here, otherwise it's just book-burning. SP-KP 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on SamuelWantman's arguments below, I withdraw this delete "vote" and ask that we consider all slang lists together. SP-KP 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Each article should be judged by its own merits. For example, taking category:Lists of songs, List of songs whose title includes dates and times is a search tool for wikipedia articles of particluar type and although a listcruft, but mildly reasonable. On the other hand List of songs whose second word of the title ends with letter "e" would be my prime candidate for deletion.`'mikka (t) 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a week argument beacuse we cannot in any fair arugument equate List of songs whose second word of the title ends with letter "e" with List of gay slang words and phrases because the latter is a subject of scholarly journal articles in all most all major languages in the West and the former is NOT, if that what nominators are are looking for and it is also subject of scholarly articles, research papers in the east too. So is the nomination for List_of_Madras_Tamil_slang_words and List_of_Sri_Lankan_Tamil_slang_and_swear_words are also flawed and should be withdrawn till issues are resolved.Huracane 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep According to WP:NOT we'd have to delte everything at Category:Lists of slang.  These would also not belong at Wiktionary which doesn't have lists of slang either.  Slang is academically studied, so having lists of slang is useful and encyclopedic.  I don't see what is hurt by keeping them.  If this was individual words I would agree to move them to Wiktionary, and I believe the guidelines make sense about not having lists of definitions of a single word.  Wikipedia is not paper.  There's room for lists of slang.  These lists can be tagged as unsourced if that is a problem, but it is not a reason to delete.  If someone can convince me that there is a difference between this list and the list of police slang or internet slang, I'm willing to listen.  If someone can convince me that the entire category and all the articles in it should be deleted, I'm also willing to listen.  Short of that, I see no reason to delete. -- Samuel Wantman 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have to delete nonencyclopedic info from Category:Lists of slang?
 * A better question may be "what makes something nonencyclopedic?" I think there are three criteria that makes something nonencyclopedic.  One, the information isn't useful.  Two, the subject is not studied in an academic forum. Three, the page is better suited to a different wikiproject.  Using that criteria, I would say the lists in the category are or can be made to be encyclopedic.--Samuel Wantman 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. `'mikka (t) 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - after reading: Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs, Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang. Davodd 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Slang words are asexual.  Therefore, the concept of "gay slang words" makes no sense.  Slang words that are sexually attracted to other slang words? -- GWO
 * Comment. A number of lists of words have been nominated for deletion in recent days which are, in principle, indistinguishable from others which have not been so nominated (see my comments on Articles for deletion/List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil).  These cases need to be considered together - we need to be consistent on what we allow and what we don't.  In my opinion, this is crying out for centralised discussion so we can thrash out a policy on when a list of slang, or word origins, or linguistic lists generally, is encyclopaedic and when it isn't.  I strongly suggest that we hold fire on all these proposed deletions until then. -- Arvind 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a conversation going on now at WP:NOT. SB_Johnny  | talk 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Arvind arguments, selection seems arbitary and selective and may be prejudicial on the part of the nominators.Huracane 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment please aasume good faith. No reason to keep provided.  Proto ::  type  09:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Implications of this decision have ramifications across a number of lists, as pointed out above. We ought to rethink our policy before we decide this specific case. See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Williamborg (Bill) 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous and current debates (from same nom) on the validity of slang articles/lists. Needs work on references. --JJay 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary or a list of dictionary definitions. Transwiki if Wiktionary want this. Proto ::  type  09:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, do not transwiki - it's entirely original research with a few arbitrary external links just dumped at the end. Proto ::  type  09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT, glossaries of specialized terms are allowed. This appears to be one. --CBD 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ROTFLMAO. Slang is slang is slang. `'mikka (t) 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Slang is an encyclopedic subject. What we call genre of music Rock N Roll, once was a slang word to have sex used by a marginalized American ethnic group. Today it is a respectable word, so is most of our vocabulary. In any language slang is one route by language changes through experimentation and eventual acceptance. RaveenS 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: useful list for tying in articles on the subject. SB_Johnny  | talk 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Orangehead 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a dictionary, or a list of slang. See discussion above on whether Wikipedia should have lists like this. Cipherswarm 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least until the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not reaches a consensus and future agreed policy can be applied sensitively. WLD 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Modern slang terms are hopelessly unverifiable. This article directly violates WP:NOT. -Will Beback 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — A useful and informative article.  &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — as per WLD's comments above. SatyrTN 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - To uphold What Wikipedia is not. Note that Mukadderat has made a wholesale move to delete all of the following slang lists:
 * Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Singapore sexual slang (he moved this first, presumably to affect the outcome of the AfD).
 * Articles for deletion/List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil
 * Articles for deletion/List of Madras Tamil slang words
 * Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lankan Tamil slang and swear words
 * Articles for deletion/List of gay slang words and phrases
 * Articles for deletion/List of Trinidadian English terms - how in the hell did this one get deleted, as there is no consensus. Someone needs to look into this one.

Does anyone besides me see an anti-ethnic, anti-minority, and anti-profanity bias here? Mukadderat seems to be very selective in his AfD nominations, which wreaks of censorship, which is a clear Wikipedia policy violation.--List Expert 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is entirely reasonable to nominate articles which violate WP:NOT. A list of Madras Tamil slang words does not belong in an English language encyclopedia, and is not verifiable. -Will Beback 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

*aditionally various other languages maintain this list in their wikipedias i know other langauges have their own rules and some allow lists but spanish for example is hardcore against lists but has allowed this one for the purpose of glossarizing and illustrating Modismos gay/Argot gay Qrc2006 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment what makes you say it is unverifiable? if something is true it is probably verifiable somwhere perhaps on a Tamil website or book or translation guide. A bilingual English-Tamil speaker would come in hnady hear. I think your view is defensive, ignorant, unencyclopedia, and even xenophobic and downright silly.
 * keep Glossaries of specific jargon are encyclopedic, this list used to be part of the Gay slang article but was made into its own separate article, i think important links may verify the terms and Gay slang is a subcultural vernacular which is verifiable simply because you are unfamilair with it and the mediams, films, books, websites, people, television channels (Logo, PinkTV, QTV, RainbowNetwork, Pridevision yeah there are 5 now!) which it is used in does not make it unverifiable.Qrc2006 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia.  They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay.  So shouldn't the policy be updated?  It would sure save a lot of wasted time and effort on fruitless AfDs.  You are welcome to join the discussion.  --List Expert 09:14, 4 August 2006 (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.