Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs/old


 * 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/merge I don't think there's a consensus to delete this. Personally I think it might be better suited for a userspace given its intention, but that merging/possibly moving seems to be what consensus is, not deletion. --W.marsh 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs/old
""keep it"" strongly vote to keep
 * del or move to user space. It nochalantly sits in the main article space, linked to and categorized along with decent, peer-reviewed and truly encyclopedic obscenities, not to mention the second-generation List of sexual slurs. mikka (t) 06:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless I'm missing something... how come people are editing it so much, even after it was moved to a subpage? --Allen 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral per debate below. --Allen 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing special, just remove it. --Ter e nce Ong 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sexual slang. -Oscar Arias 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There are 643 slurs here. Compare that to the 39 slurs on "List of sexual slurs" page (34 of which were created by me) and the zero listed entries on "Sexual slang". Further, they won't allow the two to be merged because these ones don't have sources. Many of the entries they refuse to allow are obviously real (e.g., dike). The reason they moved these to the "old" subpage was to exclude unsourced entries. But deleting these slurs will create an increadible amount of vandalism as well as alienate many legitimate users editing anonymously on the page. Perhaps we could add a tag to the "old" subpage specifying that it is a page specifically for unsourced entries? Making it almost impossible to find the terms by moving them to a user page would be wrong. I have three slang dictionaries at my house, so trust me when I say that the vast majority of the words here are true. If an editor thinks an entry sounds suspicious, they can add a tag to it and give the author some time to find a source. The vast majority of these entries were written before the recent push for citations, so the authors didn't know that they were doing something wrong by adding the unsourced material.--Primetime 09:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not dictionary. Move them to wiktionary or wikiSaurus, if you like them. mikka (t) 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The nom is completely off base here. It doesn't sit anywhere, it is the old article that we made into a subpage in order to reformulate the main article. See talk page discussion in which this nom did not participate. It is the basis for the article we have and hence the edits are essential. Finally, it is useful for keeping vandals away from the main article. -- JJay 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Put it into your user page, then. mikka (t) 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the nom and then we can discuss it. A message on the article talk page, stating your concerns, would have been a far better approach than AfD, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- JJay 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge verifiable content, until then move it somewhere else. There are no subpages in the main article space, and it shouldn't be linked to or categorised. JPD (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge verifiable content into Sexual Slang. PJM 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the verifiable content has already been merged. What remains is both unreferenced and not suited to an encyclopaedia (WP:NOT a dictionary]]).  Delete.    Proto   ||    type    13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Words like whore, tramp, and tomboy (all of which are in the list) are certainly verifiable. I have a bunch of slang dictionaries right with me, and I can see that most of the entries in this article can be verified. The only thing lacking is time. Words like whore, in my opinion, shouldn't even need a citation--as they're obviously correct--but strange-sounding words could be tagged with a tag if they're suspect. We shouldn't delete--or refuse to merge--entries that haven't been cited yet, as finding citations for over 600 terms overnight is unrealistic.--Primetime 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete subpage of main article... especially since useful content has already been merged per Proto.--Isotope23 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to wikipedia space -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Sexual Slang Funky Monkey 17:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of sexual slurs and Sexual Slang AdamJacobMuller 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a subpage, verify and transfer to main page. ProhibitOnions 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into above article(s) what can be verified (sourced). We don't use subpages in the main namespace, and the reason it isn't the main article is because it's unsourced. -- Mithent 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above articles. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per AdamJacobMuller Carlossuarez46 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. ---Dana 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You will all need to know that User:Primetime has decided at Talk:List of sexual slurs that this article mandates the complete and total merging of the /old article into the main article, whether or not they are verifiable and claims that they "will not be able to be removed". I trust those voting to merge are fully aware of how their words are being interpreted. -Splash talk 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge what can be verified, term by term. Once this workshop page is no longer needed, then it can be deleted. Voice -of- All T 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. There is a difference between verifiable and verified content. Some--not all--voters who voted to merge wrote that they think "verifiable" content should be merged. Thus, content that is verifiable--but not yet sourced--should be copied onto the "List of sexual slurs" page.--Primetime 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually, Verifiability is much stronger than that. Your notion here would allow absolutely anything to be added to any article whether or not it can be verified. The burden, as WP:V makes very clear, lies on the person adding the information. It goes on to say "Any edit lacking a source may be removed", and thus unverified items are subject to removal from an article until they are referenced. Splash talk 22:07, 22 March 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.