Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manjob


 * 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 transwiki-ed to Wiktionary and delete. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Manjob
Nelogism, prod'ed three times. Accurizer 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to be WP:NEO, can find no verification WP:V of use as a name of the act described not just as a name change for hand/blow-job and especially can not find verification for "widely accepted in urban culture".-- blue 520  13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Bige1977 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete : if a piece of slang isn't in urbandictionary.com, you can guarantee it was made up at school one day. Probably yesterday, in fact.  -- GWO
 * Delete as neologism, can't verify notability. Well-written stub, though, as stubs about obscure sexual acts go.  --Allen 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nelogism, I had to re-prod the article after the original author removed Accurizer's prod. ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles should not be re-proded have a look at conflicts section in WP:PROD.-- blue 520  09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A proper manjob should be performed with care and tenderness, and be received with respect and gratitude.
 * Keep so I can laugh at
 * JK, DELETE - NickSentowski 19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Neologism crap. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN the mentioned section. Manlete the rest. —porg es (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. (Is anyone keeping track of  to  conversion rates?) Shenme 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --GSchjetne 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exploding Boy 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the huff is about. Manjob is a term I've always heard and used so I figured I'd help wikipedia out. God knows you have everything else in here. But, if not everyone has heard of it then it's obviously something I made up. Just for the record, however, it is not a name change for the hand/blow-job. If you had read my article you would have known the difference. Also, how is urbandictionary.com a good source? Defitiely no neologisms there. I thought wikipedia existed to recognize obscure terms like manjob, which are cut from print encyclopedias due to censorship. I realize you can't allow everyone to post just anything and that there has to be some sort of editing process, but it seems like the few of you who haven't heard of manjob are holding your knowledge of urban culture (because those who frequent internet encyclopedias are in touch with urban culture) in quite high regard. Atiebout 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think at best Manjob would be more appropriately entered over at Wiktionary as a dictionary definition, marked as a neologism (Neologism: A newly and deliberately coined word.) as it definately is not a "traditional English" word. I'm sure you can agree that it's a recent addition to the language (as in, the last hundred years) and that the entry is by far more a definition than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's definately an encyclopedia. We do, however, appreciate your willingness to help assist us in keeping this project up to date! Thanks for the effort! ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent compromise. Thank you. Atiebout 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[image:120px-Single.png|30px]] Just pretend I'm the spirit of friendly cooperation incarnate! (j/k...mostly) ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:17, 3 May 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.