Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagging (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 Keep. ST47 Talk 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Teabagging

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article is currently a dictionary definition and based on it's extensive history is unlikely to become more. Vicarious 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, article has survived afd in the past (when it was called vfd), see Votes for deletion/Teabagging Vicarious 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also last month's Articles for deletion/Teabagging (disambiguation). --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (as nominator), I'm not questioning the veracity of the article, in fact I added the inline source, but it seems doomed to be an eternal dictionary definition and merits deletion on that basis, already exists at wiktionary, teabag. Vicarious 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef. Edison 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep WP isn't censored, and we should not evade it by quibbling. The article needed clarifying and expanding, and I have done so. (I would not object to reformatting the quotation, and I doubt whether the available illustrations were GFDL) If the present amount of material is thought not enough to justify an article, there seems to be more available. Note that the article in GLT was written as a condemnation of the practice, which shows it is possible to discuss these subjects NPOV. DGG 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked the discussion deleting the disam p., and it contains the comments
 * "The sex act is the only one that has reached a sufficient level of common usage to be notable, and that already has an article" and
 * "Numerous references to teabagging imply a need for the teabagging article"

DGG 06:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm confused and mildly annoyed you even mentioned censorship, because it's completely unrelated to the issue and isn't mentioned anywhere else on this page. As for the quotes you provided, I'm aware of them, because I wrote one of them. However, both quotes provided attest to notability, which teabagging is, but that's not enough. The word "vicariously" is also notable, and is used 3 times as many places in Wikipedia as teabagging, that doesn't mean it's not a dicdef. I wholeheartedly support this definition being in wiktionary, just not wikipedia. Vicarious 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or transwiki There's no question that the term is widely used so the only debate we should be having is to whether there is sufficient material for an article that goes beyond a dictionary definition. At the very least, this should stay as a redirect to wiktionary. Pascal.Tesson 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is currently a stub, but I suppose that it has the potential to go further (no pun intended). Axl 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had not idea what this was until a link pointed me to this article. This in effect proves that it is a useful entry to have around.
 * Does no one understand what dictionary definition means? Reading this on wiktionary (where it already is btw), would also have solved your problem. Vicarious 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an encyclopedia article, largely because there have been a large number of (sourcable) controversies, including interviews with victims of "teabagging", and the effects it has had on their social lives, I seem to recall one overstated interview where two parents claimed a teabagging incident had turned their son into a recluse. It definitely has the potential to be more than just a defintion. Plebmonk 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as without potential to go anywhere beyond wiktionary. Also non notable.ShivaDaDestroyer 02:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have squillions of so-called "dictionary definitions". We also have lots of articles about sexual practices - why should this one be any different? There is potential for a real article here: history of the term, references in popular culture, notable incidents (Australian Big Brother 2006 anyone?) etc. Stevage 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it certainly has the potential to be a nice article. Also, it's sufficiently notable/encyclopedic. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:14, 20 January 2007 (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.