Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs/old (2 nomination)


 * 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.... Mailer Diablo 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs/old
(Previous nomination is here.)

I categorically demand removal of this page from main article space. It blatantly and openly defies the major requirement of Verifiability. What is more, the fans of sexual slurs persistently link it from the normal article, List of sexual slurs. This is total disrespect of the major rule of wikipedia. Also article forks are forbidden in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 07:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The last AFD closed a little over three weeks ago and this is actually the third nomination. There has been no dramatic change in the article, Wikipedia policy, or the Wikipedia community in general since the last AFD. Thus, the will of the community has already been determined. Can another administrator please close the debate.--Primetime 07:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. verifiability policy is not revoked yet. And if you care to read it, you will find that it is one of the three cornerstone ones which are non-negotiable. `'mikka (t) 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - With so many people voting to keep the last time around, why hasn't anyone bothered to merge it? Especially given this article's enormous importance? Primetime is right in noting that this is too soon to reconsider, but it should be a moot point anyways. Tijuana Brass 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The editors at "List of sexual slurs" want to merge them as they are sourced. They won't allow unsourced entries into the article for the time being. They don't want to delete them all, either.--Primetime 07:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They have to move it into user space and don't link to it from articles, since this is a raw unverified source for future proper text. `'mikka (t) 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This practice of renominating for AfD until the desired result is achieved absolutely must end. If the community says "Don't delete it" more than once, it's a no-brainer that it should be kept. Captainktainer 16:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - to discourage renomination harrassment. -- Dark fred Talk to me 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait until I start harrassing this bullshit for real. If the article will sit in the article space, and you continue to link it from other wikipedia articles, I have all rights to apply Verifiability to it and delete all what smells suspicious. If you don't want to follow rules, I will join the game. `'mikka (t) 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CLOSE AS BAD FAITH NOMINATION - This comment is a possibly block-able violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a threat to WP:POINT. The current AFD doesn't meet speedy keep criteria with valid delete votes, but I would recommend that a closing administrator end it as a bad faith nomination and abusive behavior by nominator.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now. I am warning you (rather than threatening) that I am going to exercise my rights of an editor as applied to the article visible in the article space. I didn't do this before, because I thought at least one of dirt-word-lovers has a common sense. But this crowd persistently reverted my minimal changes aimed at minimal compliance with wikipedia rules. Now they are going down onto me with full forse. No more warnings. Now I will not speak but act as soon as this article pops up anywhere in the main article space. `'mikka (t) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Darkfred  Funky Monkey    (talk)   19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per too soon of nomination since last nom. VegaDark 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per too soon, and anyhow people throwing their toys out the pram and "absolutely demand"ing anything just pisses me off. Jcuk 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Lame. --Mboverload 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WINAD.  Erik the Rude 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep slightly notable, and may provide some meaningful knowledge. Wstaffor 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the real article, List of sexual slurs, is notable, but not this fork. By the way, forks are forbidden in wikipedia as well. `'mikka (t) 23:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE This page was again linked from main article space, which is inadmissible by wikipedia standards. What is wrong with the common sense? I genuinely fail to understand why the unverified content cannot be stored at the Talk:List of sexual slurs while the fwork is in progress? `'mikka (t) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Storing it on the talkpage would make the slurs harder to find for visitors. We were considering placing them on a subpage of the talkpage and then adding a link to it. Would that be acceptable to you?--Primetime 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point: Making nonverifiable content visible to wikipedia users (as you say, "visitors") is inadmissible. If you start doing this, it will open doors to all kinds of legalized POV pushing in subpages, linked from main article space. I have nothing against slurs; I am liberally using them myself (and sometimes reprimanded in wikipedia). In this case I am pursuing the major rule of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Viewers must have a way to see the list. It can either be a subpage of the talk page linked from the article, or a subpage of the main page linked to the article. Either way, there must be a link to it. If I created a subpage on the talk page and linked to it from the main article, would you remove it?--Primetime 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Verifiability policy says that encyclopedia readers must not see unverified information. Encyclopedia editors can find this page, e.g., by link from the article talk page. `'mikka (t) 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I reluctantly vote keep, because I would have voted "delete" if I'd seen the last AfD. But the other voters are right, the AfD process shouldn't be overused. -Will Beback 09:25, 20 April 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.