Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smeg (vulgarism) (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   delete. Consensus is that the provided refs are insufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Smeg (vulgarism)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article fails real-world notability. While this may of passed for an article back in the ol' days of 2007, I doubt any verifiable sources will be found. The term may be popular, but its really not notable apart from its appearance on Red Dwarf. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete more an entry for a slang dictionary than for Wikipedia, though a redirect to Profanity in science fiction might be okay. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect to List of Red Dwarf Concepts. Mattg82 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Non-Notable Neologism with some pointless trivia thrown in for good measure. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Has real-world ref (Dictionary of Contemporary Slang).  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Really? Can you really believe that there's enough sources about the word Smeg that could warrant an article? People don't comment on Smeg. Smeg doesn't have origins going through the 1800s or a long line of people using it throughout the ages. Smeg is just Smeg. It is a word that one, albeit famous, show used to replace swear words. That is all. There is not enough information for an article, nor is it really notable apart from when it appeared in the show. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't temporary. If it was notable 10-15 years ago, it's still notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that it was notable 10-15 years ago. Please read my arguments properly, and then note WP:NOTDIC Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you did say that. Please read my arguement properly.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one said it was notable 10-15 years ago, then why even bring it up? If you're referring to the old nomination, please note that Conseus Can Change. It was never notable enough for its own article. 194.80.20.181 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The above IP address (194.80.20.181) was me, as I forgot to log in. Please note the IP address is shared, however. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The topic has notability and, if the material seems too slight, we can merge to one of the good suggestions above or to Minced oaths in literature. Deletion is not appropriate as it will not assist our readership.  See our editing policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel I should point out that we have only one source for this article and even that one is from the BBC themselves. Hardly real-world notablity from what we've got so far. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretful delete- terrific TV series, but Harry Blue and others are unfortunately right. Reyk  YO!  04:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge - as much as I am a Red Dwarf fan, I don't think this can stand out as an article on its own. Some of the information could be useful if placed in a related list article though. NRTurner (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2010 (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.