Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of toilet slang


 * 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 del. mikka (t) 01:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

List of toilet slang
Last week I cut this list ofut of toilet humor. Today, tracking references from it, I stumbled onto deteted-protected Body parts slang. After reading its VfD, I see its arguments are fully applicable to this one:
 * Official policy: WP:ISNOT a...slang and idiom guide, WP:ISNOT, and Original Research. And that's not to mention the verifiability issues with all of these unsourced neologisms.
 * This article also functions as an original research magnet: people are using it to invent and promote their own neologisms.


 * Therefore, delete (drop a load, drain the radiator, shake the dew off the lily, release a depth charge) . mikka (t) 08:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are more such lists on Wikipedia, and while this is a borderline case, the policy has always been to maintain them. Truly, I don't expect things like these from an encyclopaedia, but that goes for so much more here. Caesarion 10:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Neutral seen that the Body parts slang page has been removed. Best solution would be placing the list back on the toilet humour article. Caesarion 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I quoted policies. Which are yours? mikka (t) 10:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * List like these imo do not fall under the cite-you-sources rule and we really should treat them differently. ~ Guideline fetishism here on en: is skyrocketing . Caesarion 10:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd call it consolidation of experience. Wikipedia is not anarchy. Wikipedia is not democracy. mikka (t) 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Still think these rules should be applied more loosely, but actually I always found lists like these a little bit strange. No more objection against deletion, but since it would be a pity if it disappeared forever, I preserved it in my user space: User:Caesarion/List of toilet slang. Caesarion 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. --RaiderAspect 10:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Flush ...er...Delete. PJM 15:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, in spades. rodii 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Does wikimedia have anywhere for thesaurus-type lists though? I think this list could serve a purpose (however filthy) to SOMEONE, but it doesn't really belong on wikipedia.--Hraefen 22:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has. And there is a shiny box of hyperlinks to it right at the top of the article that you are discussing.  Uncle G 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's yet another collection of thesaurus entries. But unlike sexual slang (or, indeed, toilet humour), once the thesaurus entries are removed there is no actual encyclopaedia article revealed that was buried beneath.  We already have a thesaurus.  Wikipedia is not a thesaurus.  Delete. Uncle G 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather, redirect. ... I hate to say it, since this is funny stuff.  Still, it should really be a link to a more appropriate Wiki site.  I hate to see it go, but I think we need to drop it. I might say more, but I've gotta run! JRice 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Send it somewhere. I think it's useful to have lists of slang available somewhere as a reference in case a person needs to use them.  --ZachPruckowski 19:38, 2 December 2005 (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.