Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squick (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Squick


A dicdef, and a dicdef attested from questionable sources at that. Guy 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pending Sourcing it's a common term in the fetish community and its origins merit an entry. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "pending sourcing" means here. It should be kept as long as there are no sources? ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My "Keep" vote is dependent upon verifiable sources being provided. There should be more than just USENET posts available. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. ~ trialsanderrors 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary.scope_creep 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've even used the term 'squicky' but wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Wiktionary is. Robovski 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Danny Lilithborne. I think the skull-fucking part should probably go, though. Dina 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - why is there no AfD template on the article? TerriersFan 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the AfD tag and relisted. Please keep open for another five days. ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete, original research. Demiurge 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Danny Lilithborne. Rpresser 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a competent entry for squick is indeed in Wiktionary. I would like to point out that the Wiktionary entry does in fact include printed-book citation of usage. Is it possible to make the WP article a redirect to the Wiktionary entry? Rpresser 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does, but Wiktionary has already marked it for deletion unless verified. Clearly, if unverified, it would not belong here, but if it is deleted both here and there, where will researchers of the future look ? -- Simon Cursitor
 * The RFV page for the entry says:
 * Citations added easily enough. It's used as both a verb and a noun. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 
 * So, it will stay. Rpresser 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to wiktionary seems like a perfect solution. However, I read some of the Redirect information, and I don't think these kind of interwiki redirects are done.  I suppose that too many connections between the projects could create problems if entries got deleted, moved, etc etc. -Kubigula (ave) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Widely used term and part of the social history of the fetish community. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Dicdef. I honestly don't know how common the term is, but I've used the word for years exactly as the first sentence defines it (except that I think the words "otherwise unremarkable" don't belong).  Either the term belongs in wikitionary, or it doesn't, but it doesn't belong here. Pete.Hurd 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliably sourced. Everything I looked at suggested that this is a neologism, albeit a relatively succesful one. At best, it's a dictionary def.  I would suggest transwiki, but it's already on Wiktionary. -Kubigula (ave) 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism, only reference usenet. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As it's already on Wiktionary and is just a usenet neologism.SkierRMH 07:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's dictdef, and it's neologism.  But  it has escaped from usenet into the broader community -- it is used on a number of fanfic sites (and sooner or later someone will come loking for teh definition) and if it hasn't been used in the Guardian newspaper yet, then it almost certainly will be, repeatedly, in the next six months.  It is, in effect, a meme-in-incubation, which will end up, in 200 years' time, as an example of 2-millenia-speak. -- Simon Cursitor
 * Come back when the Guardian has published it then, Wikipedia will still be here in six months time. Demiurge 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Mukadderat 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia not any sort of dictionary and this is a cruft-laden dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 18 November 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.