Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slutbag


 * 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 delete. bainer (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Slutbag
This is slang and is nothing more than a definition. If it is an acceptable enough term to move to Wiktionary, by all means vote for that. Croat Canuck 04:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as slang. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. B.Wind 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; unencyclopedic material, and biased against "baglike persons", i.e. Anthozoan-Americans. Smerdis of Tlön 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not for Wiktionary and definitely not for en.wiki--MONGO 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - personally I'd love to delete this atrocious word, but it is a real word, per 15,300 hits, so we have no choice but to keep it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zordrac, we do have a choice. We can transwiki dictionary definitions no matter how real they are if no full encyclopedia article can be written about them. - Mgm|(talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just thought that I'd point out that we have an wikipaedia entry for slut, and hence I really see no reason to not have this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - while Google does confirm that this is a word in use, the article as written is about a quarter-step above nonsense. Also, I don't really see how it could be expanded beyond a dicdef, so even a well-done article on the word would belong at wiktionary, not here. ESkog | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Create protected Redirect to Slut. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  13:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary if they want it and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - as WP:NOT UrbanDictionary. FCYTravis 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Barely even a dictionary def. --Bachrach44 04:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I laughed at "baglike persons", though. NatusRoma 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't really have much encyclopedic purpose as it now stands. *Dan T.* 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: From what people are saying, if I *really* was passionate about this being kept, I'd just have to rewrite the article. I could do that, but I really am not that interested. :) I just don't really understand the point of view that "right now" is all that matters. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because deleting bad articles does not harm Wikipedia, because a better article could always been written later to take its place. Keeping bad articles does hurt Wikipedia, because someone might come across and wonder why Wikipedia allows such garbage. Peyna 07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Legitimate. Leave it be, but the 1988 date needs explanation. User:RealBerserker 01:12am, 5 December 2005


 * 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.