Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totty


 * 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. WjBscribe 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Totty

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Transwikied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Wiktionary article has a less informative definition and I think that there is potential for expansion beyond a straightforward definition because the word is culturally significant. My view is that in cases of doubt, it is better to keep it especially since there are links to it (eg from Wallace and Gromit). Man with two legs 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, no sources to verify that the term is even used. -- Cy ru s      An dir on   15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: this term is very widely used in the UK. Man with two legs 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I say it wasn't widely used? No. I said Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, if you look at the entries for both nigger and totty there are differences. First, of all, the nigger article is sourced properly. It is also substantially longer than the totty article. The nigger article contains information on etymology and history that you could not find in a dictionary. The totty article looks like a dictionary entry. The nigger article has pictures that illustrate its usage, it also tracks how the word has been used over time. The totty article does neither of those. As you can see, there are many differences. Don't try to compare articles that are completely different in form. Also, it doesn't do any good to comment after every delete vote. You're not gaining any points by trying to discredit everyone that disagrees with you. And if the term is as widely used as you say, then show me. Put some sources or links in the article that back up your claims. -- Cy ru s      An dir on   12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was answering your statement no sources to verify that the term is even used. See Wallace_%26_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were-Rabbit for an example of its use which is culturally topical and which may or may not cause the word to change its useage.
 * Your other points regarding the article are covered by the fact that this article is a stub.
 * Your attack on me is covered by the fact that two is not a statistically large sample. Man with two legs 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; this is a term, not a subject. The article can be as long as you want, it will still be a description of a term. Tizio 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: you could make an identical argument for the term nigger, which has a very long article. Man with two legs 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm just not going to succeed on that one. Tizio 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No sources, just a dicdef, this has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. --Xyzzyplugh 00:38, 21 April 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.