Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skank (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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Skank
Nearly six months after the first AFD, this article is still a dictionary definition, and looks like it will always remain one. Articles can link to Wiktionary. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - not only a dicdef, but apparently original research. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wikitionary article on it does not have nearly the detail that the Wikipedia article goes into. For example, Wikitionary says it can be used as a verb, referring to a dance move.  Wikipedia describes the dance move.  Wikitionary says it refers to a promiscuous woman.  Wikipedia goes into greater detail.  The level of detail in the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate in Wikitionary, but someone who had been called a "skank" and wanted to know what it was might appreciate a greater level of detail.  So I suppose my vote would have to be a weak keep . ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of people would appreciate original research, but we still have a policy against it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes the dance move in Skank (dance). Remove that from this article (where it doesn't belong, per skank (disambiguation)) and all that we have left are statements that a skank is either a selfish female or a person who smells bad, along with a whole load of unsourced commentary and vague insinuation.  The article is in two minds about what a skank actually is.  In both cases, this is a silly title at which to have an encyclopaedia article on the subjects of personal hygiene or promiscuity.  If we are not having an article on those, then what is this article to be about (that isn't already covered by the other articles linked from skank (disambiguation))?  The territory in this article is already covered by the Wiktionary article and by other articles on the dance move, on hygeiene, and on promiscuity, and a disambiguation is sufficient for leading readers to each.  Uncle G 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see the otheruses template; it was hidden by the AFD tag. If the dance move already has its own article then I'd agree that this is edging from a weak keep to a neutral, especially if some of the additional detail could be incorporated into the dictionary page.
 * Recommendation to closing admin: I agree that this should be deleted, but there ate claims here not in Wiktionary. Transwikiing this to their (vacant) talk page might be a service to wikimedia in general. Septentrionalis 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Wikipedia can go into greater details on the word usage than wiktionary would.  It shouldn't be difficult to find sourced material differentiating skank from slut (read that article, please, to see how articles about words grow). SchmuckyTheCat 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * False. Wiktionary can go into as much detail on word usage as editors are prepared to write.  (Indeed, usages and etymologies are two of its primary functions.) Wiktionary is not paper.  As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia's function is not to be about the words, but about what the words denote. Uncle G 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not false, this subtle semantic schism about what wiktionary is for vs what wikipedia is for doesn't make sense to stub articles. As long as wiktionary is a separate project on a separate server it is a poor destination for wikipedia articles. You're more than welcome to take this text to wiktionary AS WELL AS keep it here on wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worthwhile article, can be expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef, nuff said. Eusebeus 07:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * very keep!! Offensive concepts should [must] be studied. hopiakuta 08:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a lot of room for expansion. I've included some notable comments and references such as it being notable enough to be a title of a book that is getting a lot of press coverage. Agne 11:35, 5 October 2006 (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.