Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussy (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:NAD; we should copy this over to Wiktionary and create a disambiguation page. Laun chba  ller  20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not an encyclopedic issue. Let us do as proposed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing turning this into a disambiguation page. This would be be achieved by ordinary editing, not deletion.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not merely a dictionary definition, this article goes into considerable detail about the term and its history and social implications. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is in need of reorganization, better sourcing, and a clearer idea of what its subject is. It also appears to have some issues with original research. That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I'll venture to say that the subject to be treated is the word pussy, and the history of its interrelated meanings. A Google Books search does find some sources that appear to be more or less on point, but none that are, at a glance, clearly sufficient on their own; thus the weakness of my !vote. By the way, given that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article and that there are at least two specific things that readers searching for the term likely intend (cat or vulva; I'm discounting coward on no evidence stronger than my own impressions), I'm not convinced that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cnilep (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm going to demonstrate a valid use of the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument in my next words: Though Wikipedia states that a Wikipedia article should not be a dictionary, per WP:Dictionary, WP:Dictionary also makes clear that Wikipedia has articles that are about a term (the WP:WORDISSUBJECT aspect of WP:Dictionary that Cnilep pointed to above), and addresses the appropriate way to design such articles -- have them be about more than just a seemingly dictionary definition. My "other stuff exists" argument shows itself wonderfully when looking at the various articles Wikipedia has about profane terms and other terms. And, Cnilep, you're not sure what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case? Since the term pussy has more than one and even more than two definitions, even if one definition is more well known than the other, this article should be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article (which is what it currently is, seemingly doubling as a WP:Disambiguation page albeit). Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that Flyer22 understands WP:BROADCONCEPT differently than I do. As the page says, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing" (etc.), then a broad concept article is warranted. For example, Finance minister is a type of thing – a position in many different governments. Pussy is not a type of thing; it is a word for (at least) three different things – cats, genitals, and people the speaker means to insult. My suggestion is that there is no primary topic. In that case, the bare name should be a disambiguation page and the articles treating the various things should have parentheses or other indices in their titles. But of course, that is a different issue than whether to keep or delete this article. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've clearly interpreted WP:BROADCONCEPT differently in this case; I understand your view of WP:BROADCONCEPT on this matter, though. And this is my cue to call BD2412 to this discussion via WP:Echo, an editor who commonly contributes to editing WP:Disambiguation/WP:BROADCONCEPT and usually knows better than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But do take a look at other articles about profane terms (that I linked to in my initial post above), such as Wanker and Shit, which cover different things that just happen to be termed the same thing. This type of grouping is standard practice on Wikipedia. In the case of those two articles and many other Wikipedia articles, we haven't created a Wikipedia entry for each meaning. It's usually best to cover it all in one article. For example, sometimes the etymology of a term addresses all the different meanings, including meanings that show themselves not to be a type of the primary or previous meaning. Gay is another example. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have not long ago created the analogous article, Dick (slang), which explains the various slang meanings of the word (genitals, detectives, and people the speaker means to insult). Here, the emphasis is not on the thing itself (this is not an article about genitals, for example), but on the word as a broad slang term. I grant that WP:BROADCONCEPT is more directed towards avoiding disambiguation for terms that are variations of a single thing (for example, Southern United States, Efficiency, or Particle), but to the extent that we are addressing the somewhat amorphously related set of meanings for a term that has no primary non-slang meaning, I think an article is appropriate. bd2412  T 15:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I somehow didn't think to mention Dick (slang), BD2412. I saw that you worked significantly on it, but I hadn't fully noticed that you had expanded it in those ways. Great example. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What's encyclopedic about the word Pussy? We already have an article that explains the Vagina and its features, and that's what its slang for, and slang is a dictionary entry. Just open up a dictionary and look up any word, it shows slang. Never have I seen slang in an actual encyclopedia. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * JasonHockeyGuy, per what has been stated above about Wikipedia having encyclopedic articles on such vulgar terms, I can't agree with your statement. Wikipedia clearly is not like other encyclopedias; see WP:NOTPAPER. As the Pussy article makes clear and has been stated above, the word pussy is not simply about anatomical features of the vagina. Cunt is another example of a vulgar term for the female genitals, and which has other meanings; it has a Wikipedia article, which clearly shows itself as an encyclopedic topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep We've been through this before. I would agree to delete if it was simply a dicdef and some etymology but it's more than that (like Fuck, Yankee, and Dude). -- Neil N  talk to me  01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or major overhaul - WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." This page groups thinks by what they're called.  Also see NOTDICTIONARY for example.  The nominated page gives etymologies and various meanings of the word itself, not the concept or topic. Even though it also gives more info than this, it's organized like a dictionary entry.  It either needs to be changed to be "encyclopedic" (and a lot of content removed) or it needs to be deleted and recreated.  Disambig and creating specific pages (e.g., Pussy (slang)) wouldn't be out of the question. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already a Pussy (disambiguation), but all uses other than the slang term are comparatively minor, and most are in some way a reference to the slang term anyway. bd2412  T 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then rename page to Pussy (slang) and edit the crap out of it. Or just nuke it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The complaint seems to be that the article is a "dictionary definition", but it is plainly more than that. It seems to me to be an encyclopedic article about a word, a word with three meanings and therefore an interesting history of pun, humour and often intentional confusion. Now, I don't know my way around all the intricacies of the various relevant policies, but it seems to me, whatever they say, that there should be room on Wikipedia (which is not a waste of paper) for interesting, encyclopedic articles about interesting and unusual words. There seems to be a tendency at the moment for people to wander around Wikipedia merely looking for things to delete. There used to be a time when material was deleted if it was potentially harmful or damaging, misleading or plain wrong. This article is not a dictionary definition, and so it fails, per this nomination. --Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from its offensive name, the article was really informative. My comment, copied from the previous Afd  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – When do we start deleting articles that, if anything, should belong in an encyclopedia? (When I looked at the title of this nomination, I actually laughed because it's so unheard of.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep extensive discussion of the topic beyond what would be in wiktionary, and a term/cultural-factor that has been discussed extensively in RS. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, educational and encyclopedic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has more than enough quality content to satisfy concerns about this article being a dictionary definition page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this i s a worthwhile and well enough done etymology, discussing word history of a ubiquitous term. Now, if somebody would kindly renominate camel toe, I'd be happy to come down on the other side of the issue. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (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.