Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sucks

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Votes are almost evenly split among "delete", "transwiki", "redirect" and "keep as is". Not reaching a clear concensus to delete, the article defaults to "keep" in some form.

Reading the current content, I also believe that this is a mere dictionary definition. It has an excellent discussion of origins, usage and similar words - exactly the content I would hope to see in a really good dictionary article. I see no potential that this will become a true encyclopedia article.

Noting that the transwiki process does not destroy history and that it therefore does not require the same concensus to transwiki an article as it does to delete one, I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to put this in the Transwiki Queue. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sucks
Created by User:EventHorizon. No objections to the content, but I'm not sure every mildly vulgar slang term deserves its own page, even if "sucks" is undisputably commonly used. Will it be important 100 years from now? Wingrat 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As an example of rapid adoption and usage shift? Maybe. No vote. Gazpacho 09:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Delete. Article provides zero evidence for its etymology, which seems a bit shallow. DicDef. Wyss 09:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to sucking would be a start, probably move to wiktionary too. Kappa 10:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwikify. Dicdef.  --RoySmith 14:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sucking - SimonP 15:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sucking. Add a note on its etymology and state that the opposite is ? (rocks - I belive). -- RHaworth 19:35, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sucking. Megan1967 01:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (As Wingrat said, I created the page.) We have pages on other profane or pseudo-profane words, such as fuck, bollocks, and tits. Sucking (which, in my opinion, should be called suction) is an entirely different phenomenon than the slang term "sucks". If my etymology is shallow, I'd really like the input of a real linguist and will defer to his or her edits.  EventHorizon  talk 05:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I made some revisions to sucking, which I still think should be renamed as suction. In my opinion, the slang use of "sucks" should not be at suction. For one, I support WP in maintaining articles on things judged "offensive" by some, but I don't think a possibly offensive topic like oral sex should be in a science article (excl. biology articles where such things may be relevant). Furthermore (to get technical) oral sex, though sometimes described as "sucking" or "sucking off", does not always involve suction; they are different phenomena. You could redirect "sucks" to oral sex, but at this point, "sucks" is a slang term (or family of related slang phrases) that have little to do with oral sex. Which is why it's considered "PG" rather than PG-13 or R (in the MPAA rating system). EventHorizon  talk 05:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Moving sucking -> suction seems like a good idea, why don't you put it to Requested_moves ? Then maybe there could be disambigs at suck and sucking. Kappa 09:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutralitytalk 05:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki excellent dicdef, complete with etymology. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 08:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The etymology given disagrees with those that I have read at other sources. Redirecting to sucking would be to completely bypass the actual slang nature of the term.  The same justification applies to this article as applies to others.  "Bollocks" is a term that non-U.K. people often do not understand, let alone correctly.  Equally, "sucks" is a term that non-U.S. people often do not understand, let alone correctly.  There is an argument for Wiktionarification, but there is also a counter-argument that if these articles disappear from Wikipedia, some 10-year-old will only create juvenile rants under those titles the very next day.  It's better to have something reasonably well-written already in place. Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 15:40, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * The proper response for ten-year-olds creating articles about Wiktionary entries can be seen at ouch. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 02:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: great refactoring, but sucking should probably move/redirect to suction. Samaritan 18:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki' Not remotely encyclopedic. --Wetman 22:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with sucking --SPUI 22:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Move - worth an article, but at suck. That page would need a disambig notice.  Smoddy | &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; 19:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE Jshanmediman
 * Keep &mdash; Why delete it? You can just add etymology information. &mdash; Wins oddf | &#9998;  03:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.