Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (2nd 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 no consensus. Ichiro 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs
This has a long list that violates notablity standards, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT 1.2.2 and WP:NOT 1.2.3. This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity. While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense. Also note that the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets(users with 1-3 edits)

I recommend that the list be deleted and the rest moved to Sexual slang or perhaps merged into Sexual slurs. The non-list content of this article was already merged into a subsection of sexual slang. If we merge to Sexual slurs, then the subsection in sexual slang must be removed.  Voice of All T 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sexual slang. Voice of All T 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Strange as it may seem, a lot of people might use this list. It should be marked as cleanup - to take out the bad ones - but the actual idea of the article is OK.DrIdiot 04:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of people will use a lot of things, whether they are true or not or violate policy or not. We need higher standards than this. Voice of All T 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines and policy on Wikipedia are intended to have exceptions. Thinking that Wikipedia should somehow have higher standards than to document this is not a valid criteria for deletion. Adrian Lamo 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I was the one who originally nominated this for deletion. It is an uncyclopedic cruft list of sexual slang and has no place here. --Revolución (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd like to say that if any of this content is preserved, I think it should be limited to the prose prior to the actual list (which has actually already been merged to sexual slang), and it should be moved to a new article, sexual slur.  I disagree with sexual slang as the merge target for the prose; I believe that the list itself needs to be deleted, period.  The Literate Engineer 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep "Voice of All" (I think he really believes his name) got caught abusing his admin powers on this topic, and now he's just got a case of Sour Grapes. Most of the content on the page is valid.  Either work toward improving it, or don't visit the page.  Isn't that what free speech is all about? MonkeyHateClean 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to be an example of free speech, it is an encyclopedia. Voice of All T 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point, comrade. MonkeyHateClean 05:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at least severely prune/cleanup. Most of the entries on this list are not independently verifiable outside a couple of mentions on LiveJournals and the like. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * cleanup Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Voice of All asked me to clarify this vote. I meant that the list should be pruned.  Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, with cleanup and verification.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I support removing all prologisms/unstable neologisms (which, now that I look at it again, turns out to be a good many of them), with verification if possible, and adding a link under "See also" in sexual slang. Though, a merge would be fine with me (my opinions are not too strong on this article).&#160;—  The KMan  talk  00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Delete. Generally I vote on AfD's out of pure principle.  This is a more pragmatic vote: as a practical matter, cleaning up the cruft is a monumental effort; adding the non-cruft part to Sexual slurs is likely to be a path of less resistance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and cleanup since even the nom says it can be improved. -- JJay 10:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: In response to the request for clarification from Voice of All(MTG) left on my talk page and here, strong keep means exactly what it usually means in English- Keep the article strongly, do not delete, do not merge, do not redirect, do not remove, do not disparage, do not disrespect. Furthermore, clean-up means add some references- it does not mean remove, kill, redirect or merge, as you seem to be implying. I hope this clears everything up for those who were confused by my initial opinion. -- JJay 06:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with sexual slang -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - problem seems to stem from controversial content, and not the topic itself. Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise, I see no reason to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you examine the nomination statement (again) and explicate to me how it proposes to delete the article based on controversy rather than the policies it cites? Once you've done that, perhaps you might also post a list of the 'delete' related comments which also mention the need to remove controversial content for the sake of it? Thanks. -Splash talk 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, replace "controversial" with "disputed". My main point remains - it's the content that's the problem, not the topic. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, with cleanup — What User:MonkeyHateClean said. And there should be some form of censure against User:Voice of All(MTG)'s abuse of his admin powers, imho. — OwenBlacker 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, every vandal and trolls call "admin abuse", getting RID of policy vios is "admin abuse", this is just getting old. Voice of All T 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's getting old because you keep doing it. MonkeyHateClean 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article's a mess, it's not really a list but an actual entry - which should be merged into sexual slurs. But crappy articles can always be cleaned up and I can conceive of a better list evolving. Ifnord 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment addressed to those advising cleanup: Could you describe, either here or on the entry's talk page, what sort of cleanup you reccomend? I think that would be helpful in the event this results in a "no consensus" or "keep, cleanup" closure.  The Literate Engineer 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes what kind of cleanup do you want? Do you want the list removed? Voice of All T 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to have sources cited for this list. It is very, very susceptible to a bunch of teens deciding to put their own little inventions inside. Cite sources, people! Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly delete, possibly merging whatever's verifiable into Sexual slang. The intro may contain usable content, but the list part of it is not an article, it's just a magnet for people inventing neologisms and using Wikipedia to promote them.  Friday (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to demonstrate the idiocy of this list, I have randomly chosen a word and its definition from the list: shitdick -(U.S.-Ohio)Gay male; one who enjoys anal sex. I ask, is this encyclopedic? Does it have a source for the claim of it coming from Ohio? Or was it that, some anonymous user from Ohio, excited they came upon this "dirty word" list, made up the word "shitdick" on the spot and inserted it into the article. This is most likely the case for most of the words listed. --Revolución (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: To demonstrate the viability of the list I randomly chose Jobby Jabber, a term supposedly from Scotland that I had never heard of. I immediately found a printed source that confirmed the usage and derivation. In fact, most of the terms are in wide use and can be referenced to print sources. Editors need to look beyond their personal revulsion and accept that this is really no different from articles like List of political epithets, which unfortunately also lacks any references, notes or bibliography. -- JJay 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if Bill Watterson were still doing the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon series he'd have a field day with this. Those cartoons of Calvin phoning up libraries, trying to get librarians to give him lists of swear words. Now, all Calvin needs to do is look it up in an encyclopaedia! Strong delete JGF Wilks 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So your reason for deletion is to protect minors? Turnstep 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep although the terms themselves may need verification. Jcuk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. No valid reason for deletion. If words on the page are suspect, remove them to the talk page until they can be validated. Perhaps make a talk subpage of "non-verified words" that should not be added until sourced. Turnstep 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Sexual slang, and remove any non-verifiable content. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely a useful list. Some people seem to be voting with their biases.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that people who enforce WP:V are baised. Nice job ignoring all the rules violations I posted and using an ad hominem statement. Voice of All T 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or [non-ideally] Merge -- This content is relevant to a large cross-section of the readership of Wikipedia, and likely to be referenced or used. Slavish adherence to the text of "Wikipedia is/is not" guidelines isn't indicated here. Adrian Lamo 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sexual Slurs. SorryGuy 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unverified content. Delete the list (or transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want to bother with it) and merge any useful content, if any, to Sexual slang, per nominator. - Mike Rosoft 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if possible, failing that Merge any verifiable, encyclopedic content with Sexual slurs. Anything that does not satisfy WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOT has to go. -  brenneman (t) (c)  22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only what is verifiable. Guettarda 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which parts is that? -Splash talk 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep such American priggery - it never ceases to amaze me. WolframSiever 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble with knee-jerk responses is that they generally fail to have paid any attention whatever to the nomination and/or the preceding comments. I wonder if you can document which delete-parts of the debate so far deal with "American priggery" &mdash; apart from your own comment, of course. -Splash talk 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish AfDs were more of a debate, a list of points for and against, in addition to voting. As of now we have numerous policy vios and notablility(6+ and stong) vs. the possibilty of citing and cleanup (1, only addresses 2 points maybe). We do have a lot of idiotic knee-jerk trolling strawman arguments, not that those count. I could imagen Britannica authors discussing what to include in a civilized, reasonable, manner, and they would never even consider many of the keep votes by newer users as they either have no argument or use a strawman(no argument). Voice of All T 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * AFD is a debate; that's why it had its name changed from Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. The problem is that often there can never be a winner, because there are bound to be crucial things which are simply a matter of opinion, and not fact. For instance, that perennial bugaboo, notability. Some people refuse to even accept it as a legitimate reason to delete, while others have different definitions of notability. For instance, this article is notable, IMO, because it compiles a list of different slang words regarding sex without necessitating the creation of a few dozen/hundred articles on each of those slangs, many of which are probably in themselves notable. You, on the other hand, disagree. It's purely a matter of opinion. This is why debates have limitations when it comes to real solutions to real problems. AfD is currently a hybrid of a debate, a vote and something else entirely. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Voice of All's nomination does not rely on notability one inch. It cites several bases in policy, not a one of which has been challenged by those saying "keep, because, oh well, because I can't be bothered to work on it myself by detest deletion of lists on principle". If something "compiles a list of words", is not for a dictionary? -Splash talk 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While I believe that notability is what stops this encyclopedia from ballooning in size by 100 fold with cruft, that cost money to mantain on the servers, that is not the only reason I listed this. I see it as important, but even if you don't, there are so many other issues I raised that are important policy vios that it really doesn't matter at all what you think of notability. Voice of All T 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Those policies apply to content not topic, like I said. If there's an issue with the content, and the content is salvageable (which at least some of it is), the appropriate action is to tag it for cleanup. And I see no reason why a list of words can't be encyclopedic provided those words have more than definitions (you know, etymological history, pop culture references, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup with sources. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for two reasons:
 * See seperate page here for analysis of how August 2005 AfD was manipulated by sockpuppets (who got away with it then but shouldn't continue to be rewarded).
 * Also on that page -- Many of the Keep votes for the August 2005 AfD were basically "Keep but only if cleaned up". It has NOT been cleaned up. I here submit five additional delayed-action Delete votes based on the expressed opinions of those (August) voters. If those votes are not considered then "Keep if cleaned up" means nothing, disrespecting the wishes of those editors.Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: All of you voting "Keep if cleaned up"... keep in mind the above, that your vote will be recorded as "Keep", that several voters in August said the same thing, that the article has not been cleaned up since then, that (IMO) it probably won't be now (if kept), and that, if the article isn't cleaned up, there is no mechanism to follow up and convert your votes to "Delete". (I am claiming to do so for the August voters, but (a) that may be considered outlandish and (b) it's very labor-intensive and can't usually be done, I just happened to do it this time.) You might want to reconsider your votes? Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Request to closing administrator to consider, per the above, that previous AfD was manipulated and/or my submission of five addional Delete votes from August. Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the voters from August continue to have feelings regarding this matter, they should vote again now. Past performance is no guarantee that this article will not be edited for the better in the future. Adrian Lamo 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't expect editors to follow up their AfD votes like that, watching articles to see if they're cleaned up, re-AfD'ing them after a time if they're not, perhaps contacting the other Keep-if-cleaned-up voters. It's too time-consuming. Also, its inefficent for each voter to follow up their own vote. Here I have done a batch follow-up for all these votes. They made their wishes clear at the time, and it's been six months. I think that's long enough to qualify as "cleanup was not implemented" for the purposes of those (August) votes. Herostratus 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. As you know, proxy voting is not allowed. We are trying to reach consensus here and referring to imaginary delete voters and your interpretation of past AfDs is not helpful and is insulting to participants in this forum. -- JJay 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep does not equal "Keep if cleanup up". The condition has not been meet after 6 months. Now, I do not believe that they still hold 1:1 weight with new votes, but they do have significant weight. What is "insulting" is to just dismiss the conditions of people who had optamistic votes. Voice of All T 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we know whether or not those people are satisfied with the progress the article has made? There have been *lots* of edits to the page since the last AfD. Perhaps it now meets their definition of "clean". Turnstep 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My Keep vote actually represents five additional advanced-action Keep votes for participants who will be here in six months. Like you, I can see read this in the tea leaves. -- JJay 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Oh yeah? Well... well... I claim an additional vote because I'm pregnant, so there! (not really j/k) Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That really didn't help to advance this discussion. I'd urge you to redact.  Feel free to delete this if you do. -  brenneman (t) (c)  01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A little humor isn't going to cause AfD to burst into flames. It highlights how ... unserious the concept of voting on behalf of random people is. Sorry, Voice of All, but I don't find your assertion that we need mind theoretical votes by hypothetical voters (who can't be bothered to be here, now) to be credible. It goes against the concept of voting, which is to capture the zeitgeist, not to try and figure out what people were thinking six months ago. Adrian Lamo 05:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Future is not the same as the past. These people put up a condition that was not met. Should contracts be ignored because "people might not still remember"? I think not. And using future voters as a strawman is just childish. Voice of All T 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, JJay, c'mon. Are you sure you're arguing from principle rather than stating a principle to support your position? (We all do that sometimes, don't we? But it's not best!) Do you really, as a matter of principle, believe that "Keep if cleaned up"=="Keep"? Will you support that principle if and when it will lose you votes on a future AfD? I'm just asking. Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintanable listcruft; already covered (better) in other places. An encyclopedia needs this? I think not. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic -Doc ask? 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic, and similar to the transwikied List of sexual slang. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To expand on my keep vote earlier, and directly address the nominators concerns:
 * WP:CITE and WP:V -- I maintain that the items on this page *can* be verified and cited, thus the problems of WP:CITE and WP:V are cleanup problems for individual items on the list, not the page as a whole. If it turns out that every item on the page fails WP:CITE and is thus removed, then the page can be deleted at that time for having no content.
 * WP:NOT 1.1.1 -- which says please do not create an entry merely to define a term. This is a list of terms, not a definition of a single one. While some may only be "dicdefs", they are important in the context of the page.
 * WP:NOT 1.2.3 -- which prohibits lists of such definitions. However, this page is more than that: it has text at the top, references, and most important, many of the terms are hyperlinked to actual articles (thus, it is not just a list of dicdefs).
 * This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity -- They should be removed if not validated, regardless of the language: see above.
 * While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense -- an argument for cleaning up, not deleting.
 * ...the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets -- that's a matter for Deletion Review. The article should be evaluated as it exists, not because it somehow "escaped" AfD deletion earlier.
 * Overall, the "no lists of dicdefs" is the only real argument here, but that fails if for no other reason that there are items on the list that link to genuine established non-dicdef articles. Turnstep 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Impossible to cleanup and keep cleaned up. Not only does experiance with other lists of this type show it, experiance with this list shows it.  See Talk:List_of_sexual_slurs for context. -  brenneman (t) (c)  07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It does make me unhappy that I voted to delete. There is useful info there. For instance... in future decades if someone comes across the term "light in the loafers" in an old manuscript, there ought to be some place to look that up. But I think cleaning up this article is Augean task, and I don't think its going to happen, and then it will have to be continually maintained. IF someone were to pledge to do a major cleanup, fairly soon, and maintain the article, that might be diferent. Anybody? Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems easy enough to clean up. Much easier to clean up than a lot of the overblown political dreck on so many wiki pages. WhiskyWhiskers 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, need for cleanup is immaterial to AFD, does not violate WP:NOT.  23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most definitely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No amount of "clean-up" would make this puppy acceptable. Sunray 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be fixed and maintained. Ashton Coochter 23:12, 12 January 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.