Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese profanity (5th 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Article fails to demonstrate verifiability by containing zero sources, reliable or otherwise. Obvious WP:OR problems, revisited from last AFD in 2012. Contested prod. Prodego talk  07:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I can't find any sourcees through the above links that mention it more than simply in passing. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 07:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The last AFD was a clear Keep and this nomination doesn't add anything new. That discussion identified a good source and here's another one. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been 4 years since the last AFD, so I think a revisit is in order. We need to cite reliable sources to satisfy WP:V – it isn't sufficient that one simply exists. No one has done so in the last 4 years since the last AFD, or the nearly 10 years from the first.  This page has been tagged for OR for 8 years, tagged for RS for 2 years, tagged to be rewritten for 6 years, and tagged for notability for 6 years. This isn't a proposal to salt the earth, the current page can be deleted and the article built anew in the future. It can even be restored if someone wants to build from the old page. Unless someone rewrites it now, the alternative is to remove all the unsourced statements and leave an empty article.   Prodego  talk  17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not require that we add sources as a matter of course; only for statements that are disputed or quotes. Nabla is Portuguese and tells us that the current page is mostly correct.  Adding sources for their own sake would therefore be mostly busy work. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not require inline citations as a matter of course. It does require verifiability against a reliable source. From the first sentence of WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." See also WP:BURDEN, which is even more explicit: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Prodego  talk  17:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * comment I doubt we need this kind of "comparative linguistics" sets of articles. I understand learning profanities in another language is something we tend to do and find interesting and amusing, but do we have - and should we have - sets of articles on how to praise in each language? what words are used to refer to cars? or apples? or trees?... I really doubt it. Nevertheless the article is mostly correct (note: I am Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As an example of more positive language, see Honorifics in other languages and cultures and the associated specific pages such as French honorifics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, good point, thanks. That one certainly makes a lot of sense to me, as quite useful to understand History articles, or current events. What irks me with the profanity series is that is looks like a "random" choice of subject. Note however that I am not against these articles, it feels like a waste of time and bytes for me, but if someone works on them (here and out there) then fine. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Profanities in general are notable, and Portuguese is a notable language. I quickly found a source. The article needs cleanup for any OR, but at least some of the profanities exist and deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful, and all the previous AFD resulted in a clear keep too. I think being nominated 5 times for deletion is enough. MaeseLeon (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the lack of a serious challenge to what was written in the last AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid subarticle. Esquivalience  t 00:29, 3 January 2016 (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.