Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near woman


 * 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 was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Near woman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article seems to be a joke. Google searches for "Lakota near woman" show nothing except exact copies of the opening sentence of this article. Searches for "near woman" show those sites, many instances of the two words together, and one use in a Western novel written in the 1980s which uses the expression in dialogue between two Indian characters -- and in that case the reaction did not seem to be what was described in this article. Besides that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary discourages articles on the meaning of words and expressions, and the notability of this one is certainly not established. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the better reason for deleting this, is that it was made up in school one day, which Wikipedia is not for.   makes it amply clear that this is something someone said in a lecture once, that students have adopted (and then written up on Wikipedia) without checking their facts and finding proper documentation on the subject.  It has been since tidied up with citation tag and so forth, to give it the veneer of encyclopaedicity, but this remains something sourced to an offhand comment in a lecture that Wikipedia readers cannot possibly check, supported by some vague handwaving at a dictionary.  The I'm-a-student-and-I've-heard-this-insult on the article's talk page simply reinforces this. By the way: There are sources discussing insults aimed at de-masculinizing males by assigning feminine attributes &mdash; a subject that Wikipedia covers very poorly if at all.  's article on Turkish in ISBN 9789027218414 does so, on pages 302–303, for example.  This isn't one of the insults, this title isn't the name of that subject (or indeed any subject), and this content is unverifiable and useless for building a proper article.  Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This phrase lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails WP:N. This encyclopia is also WP:NOT a dictionary of obscure insults, especially ones made up in school one day. Edison (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. I happen to own Buechel & Manhart's Lakota Dictionary (the first reference given in the article), and while it does confirm that nuns'elececa means "almost, nearly" and winyan means "woman", it does NOT list the phrase nuns'elececa winyan on pp. 523-524 (or anywhere else as far as I can tell). That means the one possibly verifiable source the article lists is bogus; the other is a classroom lecture from over 12 years ago and completely unverifiable. The argument from WP:DICT is very weak, however, since phrases like this are (if verifiable) in principle legitimate topics for encyclopedia articles. —Angr (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per lack of sources. Also an insult which automatically causes an immediate fight to the death does not seem to be very useful. You might as well just attack the person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The two main contributors were single purpose accounts, the source is unverifiable, and no further information can be found that isn't just a copy of this article. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (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.