Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese profanity (4th 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   keep. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Burdened with maintenance templates for 5 years. This is nothing but an original research essay, completely devoid of sources. The examples are nothing but an arbitrary, cherry picked list without rhyme or reason. In short, it's just plain unencyclopedic. The last three AFDs were all "no consensus" (2006, 2008, 2010), but the only "keep" arguments I see are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic seems very likely to be notable, for example chapter 8.7 of  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also (in chronological order):
 * Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity
 * Articles for deletion/Italian profanity
 * Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Mandarin slang
 * Articles for deletion/Romanian profanity
 * Articles for deletion/Mandarin Chinese profanity
 * Articles for deletion/Latin profanity
 * Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity (3rd nomination)
 * --Lambiam 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the apparent confusion – the above debates are not currently listed, and are solely referred to because they all appear to consist of similar arguments (pro: the topic is notable; con: the presented list is unsourced OR). --Lambiam 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all Profanity is an important part of culture, and it seems congruent with the five pillars to keep these articles. For any language, there are generally multiple reliable sources discussing profane words. Edison (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relist individually though I agree with TPH that some of the articles are lacking, I believe that we should discuss them one by one. We're not simply talking about profanity but different cultures as well. It would also make it easier for dedicated regional boards or Wikiprojects to find the articles and judge the fate of its inclusion in the Wiki.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep So there is periodic AfD for this article, in 06, 08, 10, 12, and again in 14? Each culture has their own collection of profanity which is different from other cultures. There are a lot of reliable sources available. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep these are all appropriate articles. There is some appropriate overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. Profanity can be notable, and if sourced properly, is presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (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.