Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay slang words and phrases (second nom)


 * 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 delete. AFD isn't a vote most of the info is unsourced, WP:V was the main concern in it, which isn't acceptable Jaranda wat's sup 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of gay slang words and phrases (Second nomination)


This is a collection of dictionary definitions, slang varies depending area/era and is vey hard to verify, there are no citations for the vast majority of words, nor is there any clear criteria for inclusion HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. For anyone interested, please take a quick look at the previous nomination instead of just jumping in. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really should have put that link in myself, sorry. This is the first time I have given an article a second nomination. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a dictionary. Also, contemporary slang terms are very difficult to verify. -Will Beback 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. (multiple edit conflict) The previous discussion talked about taking time to consider amending policy, but it has not been amended.  Encyclopedic lists generally serve as short summaries of articles or sections of articles, and should have some hope of being exhaustive.  Lists of non-technical terms tend to be attractive nuisances.  Even lists of technical terms probably belong in Wiktionary.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - erm, yeah, that was me. --Dennisthe2 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Under the slang page, there are 54 pages of slang listed. Some have been Transwiki, but there doesn't appear to be any big push to move the majority of those. Patrick925 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those have significant encyclopedic text about the slang, as opposed to a list of words with definitions next to them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every time one of the lists of slang is nominated some editors point to the other slang articles as a justification for that article's existence. Consider this a small push. -Will Beback 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "None of the other flower beds having been weeded, why should I weed this one?" Consider this my contribution to the "big push". --  I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  07:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete From "What Wikipedia is not": "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. This is an unmaintainable list, mostly made up of neologisms. It is largely unverified, making it original research. --  I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwicki to Wiktionary, or very weak keep if there is a significant re-edit including more encycolpedic information (as per HighInBC and Will Beback above]]SkierRMH 08:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the Solomon Islander. Black-Velvet  12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's worth asking why the list of gay slang words has been targeted but the various other lists (slang words referring to police officers??) have not. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith here.  Can somebody assuage my fears? CaveatLectorTalk 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will gladly assuage your fear. I made the nomination. I left a message here attempting to premptivly assuage your fears as I sort of expected this response. The reason there are many other slang lists out there is simply because they have not been gotten to, or they are well referenced with significant encyclopedic content. The reason I nominated this is that it is a list of dictionary definitions.
 * I personally think homosexuallity is a fine encyclopedic subject. I think an article about slang is also very encyclopedic. But a list of words with definitions goes into a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. While it may be hard for you to assume good faith here, pehaps it will help if you look through my edit contributions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT a guide to word usage, jargon, or slang. This isn't bias, this is WP:WWI / WP:WWIN.  If you think another article violates policy the same way and isn't more verifiable or more encyclopedic, nominate it for deletion; don't claim it justifies keeping this one or proves discrimination.  Barno 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as a Wiktionary appendix. --Howrealisreal 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Recury 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and Verifiability. My concern with a slang list is that anyone can come along and add words to the list that are extremely local, rarely used, or even bald-faced neologisms.  If we don't require that use of the terms be verified, what good is the article?  I think we should include only those terms that have documentably widespread use.  That would undoubtably decimate this list, and the terms that are left over are going to be those that are already mentioned in other articles (MTF and FTM, Ambisexual) or are important enough to have an article of their own (Gaydar, Bear community, Twink (gay slang)).  So, out with the list.  Seriously, what good is it?  You can't use it to learn slang for conversation because you have no way of knowing whether a term on the list is completely unknown in your area or hopelessly out-of-date, and you can't use it for research because there's not enough information and it's unverified. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep technical or cultural jargons are kept unless people don't like the group apparently: see lots of members in Category:Lists of slang, Category:Lists of terms, including the very important List of wizarding terms in translations of Harry Potter and List of popular music terms, oh but we must smash the gay lists, mustn't we... Carlossuarez46 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out other lists that should be considered for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. The arguments being made to delete this article have nothing to do with its being related to homosexuality and would apply equally to the other articles you mention, which I also would thank you for pointing out.  I work with WikiProject Neopaganism, another area where bias is a concern, but I know that not all articles related to neopaganism will be good ones; when these articles are put up for deletion, it is generally not because of bias against neopaganism but simply because there is something wrong with the article.  The same goes for LGBT-related articles.  Like articles on any other topic, they can be unverifiable or fall under WP:NOT, and it seems pretty clear to me that this one does both. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is really not the wiki way to assume malicious motives when an innocent explaination has been provided. I cannot tell you the reasons people are !voting, but I can assure you I nominated it because it is a dictionary article, and no other reasons. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - this kind of list is what makes wikipedia better than a paper dictionary. - Richardcavell 11:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are not thinking of wikipedia's sister project wiktionary? Same idea, no paper, same foundation, different scope. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 17 November 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.