Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacking


 * 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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Termination of employment. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sacking
I found this one whilst searching for something completely different. Not only is it a dictionary entry, but it's of dubious truth; I'm sure this behavior happened long before 2003. So, in short, it's unverifiable, not an encyclopedia entry, and because of the name dropping, arguably vanity -- therefore, it should be deleted or changed back into a redirect to termination of employment. FreelanceWizard 04:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sack, er...Delete per nom. Unverifiable garbage. PJM 04:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to teabagging, which is a terrible article about a real practice (the one described in this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, termination of employment is probably a better redir target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to termination of employment per nom. And do delete, so this content is wiped. Marskell 09:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OMFG! Okay, do we really need this kind of thing in an encyclopaedia?  Do we need to have explicit descriptions of obscure sexual practises?  I think that that article needs an R rating.  Since wikipedia has a G rating, I don't think we have any choice but to Delete it.  More commonly, sacking is a term used when someone is fired, so put in a Redirect to termination of employment.
 * Wikipedia in general does not have a "G-rating". PJM 14:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't? But the internet as a whole has a G-rating, unless prohibited in other ways. If Wikipedia does not have a G-rating, then it would have to be blocked (or else sections of it that are not G-rated would have to be) by NetNanny and other blocking software.  This would make Wikipedia practically useless for class projects and such (which seems to be one of the main uses of it).  Ergo, if Wikipedia doesn't have a G-rating, it should. 203.122.225.241 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please go to the bottom of any Wikipedia page, follow the hyperlink to the disclaimers, and read them and their talk pages. Uncle G 16:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable is the closest thing that I could find to something suggesting it was not G-rated. Again, there are laws in existence in most countries of the world in relation to content that is allowable on the internet.  For example, in Australia, anything that is considered to be "adults only", including explicit nudity, must first have a disclaimer on a blank page before linking to any pictures - and any explicit sex must require password protection and validation of adult age.  I believe that the laws in the United States are very similar.  i.e. the internet is G-rated. 203.122.225.241 17:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please review the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia is not "rated" at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain material which may be offensive to anyone. There are no valid laws in the United States which pertain to non-pornographic Internet content - the portions of the Communications Decency Act which related to "patently offensive" content were struck down as unconstitutionally broad. Only "obscene" content is prohibited and there is *nothing* on Wikipedia which could be construed as obscene by any reasonable person. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect To Teabagging as noted above. It's essentially the same thing.  The semantics of perversion.  TotalTommyTerror 17:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Under no circumstances redirect to Teabagging, because it's not an unambiguous synonym. I've never encountered it in that sense, and so my inclination is to assume that's a neologism, and it should therefore be redirected to termination of employment.  If the sexual meaning is, in fact, well established &mdash; for example, do you have any citations from printed publications, perhaps? &mdash; then we should disambiguate here, rather than redirecting anywhere. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. PJM 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per user:Marskell to termination of employment, not teabagging. When the Internet writes articles about whatever strikes its fancy, content begins to look like the Internet:  "Hey, Homer, your cartoon is the number 3 non-pornographic site on the Internet, which makes it 5 million and forty-third overall!"  Geogre 11:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to termination of employment. Teabagging???? KillerChihuahua 16:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. I don't think a redirect is needed either, as there are certainly other meaning of "sacking" : link to Wictionary if anything. Turnstep 17:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect termination of employment. Preaky 07:03, 27 November 2005 (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.