Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese profanity (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 was   no consensus to delete. henrik • talk  05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese profanity
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of semi-notable at best obscene phrases. It is entirely unsourced, consists mainly of original research, violates our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, and our NOT policy. Therefore it should be deleted from Wikipedia, with the option of giving it to Wikiquote or Wiktionary proposed to those projects.  MBisanz  talk 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary/en in the appendices. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equendil Talk 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Profanity is as much a part of an ethnic group or nation's culture as etiquette is. Just as one should know what is considered polite, one should also know what is offensive.  While I'm sure there are some readers who would get a juvenile thrill out of knowing how to use a bad word in Brazil or Portugal, there are many others who would get an understanding of what words to avoid using.  Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wickipedia is not a dictionary, not a tourist phrase book (or How too guide). It is certainly not a portuguese dictionary. Without sources is no point even to transwiki.Yobmod (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of a series of articles on profanity by language, this needs expansion, not deletion.  It would be helpful if a Portuguese speaker were to de-listify this and expand on the cultural resonance of the various words.  But there is no deadline, and even the opening paragraphs are a start. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia WP:NOT a dictionary. RFerreira (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of the series; even though not yet well developed, the solution to that is to work on the article. The nom mntioned that much of it is obscene--I hope that did not count in the nomination, for WP is not censored. DGG (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, censorship didn't play a role in my choice, other than to the extent that defining what is and is not profanity is an inherently individual term (outside of published literature) and therefore runs into original research issues.  MBisanz  talk 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there are two conflicting issues in this discussion: the topic of the article and the content of the article. The topic of the article (Portuguese profanity) is valid and notable -- it is a subject of interest to students of culture and language. However, much of the content of the article (the list of words/phrases and their translations) is probably more appropriate in Wiktionary. (I write "probably" since Wiktionary has its own inclusion criteria, about which I know very little.) Is it possible to keep and transwiki? (Note: this is essentially the same comment I typed at Articles for deletion/Mandarin Chinese profanity.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Profanity is a rich vein of cultural insight. Much more could be done to this article it needs expert attention and referencing not deletion. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (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.