Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang

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 no consensus (default KEEP) — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Body parts slang

It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN. drini ☎ 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a_dictionary and WP:WIN:

Wikipedia is not a usage guide Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used

Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide

Besides, it seems like anything can be fit into here. Really, if Marx and Stalin fit for breasts, then CocaCola and Pepsi, Sony and Cher, or any other 2 nouns should go into here too. Likewise with other body parts. So this has no chance of actually being encyclopedic. drini ☎ 05:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, original research. --Angr/_comhrá 06:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definitions, original research. Megan1967 07:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Original nonsense. Hopefully this is stuff that won't need a vote after the Deletion forum comes to a decision. Harro5 08:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Ejaculations. I used my musketeers to type this article so I could see it with my Marty Feldmans. Geogre 11:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Two things to point out here:
  • The Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis, the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Street name, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of street names of drugs discussions are worth reading.
  • This probably opens debate on The Outsiders (novel) slang dictionary and Singapore sexual slang, and re-opens the debate on Sexual slang (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sexual slang).
• The same considerations apply here as in the "list of words of X" debate, namely that the list of dictionary entries is inappropriate for the encyclopaedia (especially as there's a 70,000 word dictionary right next door nearly begging to be used in ways such as Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:penis, Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:anus, Wiktionary:WikiSaurus:vagina, and how Cannabis (drug) uses Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang) but there's often a sentence or two that could start an encyclopaedia article, if only people would stop trying to write a dictionary (or, as here, a thesaurus) in the same space.
• My own opinion expressed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Latin origin, Talk:Lists of English words of international origin, and elsewhere still stands: excise the thesaurus and Keep as a stub for an encyclopaedia article about body parts slang. There are three paragraphs here that (albeit that they are currently pretty much straight copies from sexual slang) might start it, if only they weren't being drowned by the thesaurus. Uncle G 13:24, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Strong concur with Uncle G, WP:NOT a dictionary, and WIKT:IS a dictionary. Radiant_* 14:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with drini. CryptoDerk 15:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep and trim per Uncle G. Kappa 18:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there's a problem with the swearing, its perfectly encyclopaedic and legitimate. Internodeuser 19:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another disruptive vote by Internodeuser. RickK 22:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Hack and slash and rewrite as per Uncle G. Scimitar 22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is original research (of dubious value) and it is nonsense. What's more, if we're going to have a penis-names article and a body-parts-names article, why not have clitoris-names or earlobe-names. This is getting ridiculous. Bgeer 03:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs to be synchronised with euphemism where appropriate, but are two separate categories. Beta m (talk)
• Transfer to Wiktionary. Neutrality^talk 02:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a sort of original research, and as generally unverifiable. Really, any stupid name for any old body parts could be added here, with the argument "I heard somebody call them that once." Joyous 02:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs text modified, as such slang is certain not limited to adoscencents attempting to impress one another, but is in daily usage by members of both sexes in non-business level interpersonal communication. It is however very common outside the whitecollar workplace. The article is further, informative, and I SEE NO PLACE WHERE It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN, save It might be misconstrued as thesarus material, (Certainly NOT dictionary in form!) but I think the collection and presentation of the widespread collective usages is very illuminating, however misguided the original task in conception. While I am amused at the topic extent of the coverage, I have to give kudos to the apparent completeness of the topic coverage. Such subject matter is not likely to be covered in any printed media, and Wiki strikes me as a perfect place for such outre' coverage. The article is further serious in tone, if not in impact while reading it's seemingly endless lists. If kept, I would expect writers of fiction to consult with it frequently as they struggle to personify characters and set them apart in their prose. As such, the collected wisdom therein may well be of far more social use than the dissertions of 95% of PHD candidates. Fabartus 23:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• It goes agains WP:WINwhere it says

A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily-confused ideas, as at Nation or Freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

since it doesn't provide context nor expand abotu the linguistics involved, (it's just a list), and since WP:WIN is official policy, then this entry should go away. drini ☎ 23:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a place for new research nor is it a dictionary -Joey.dale 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sexual slang is for sex, this article is for body parts. —Markaci 2005-06-2 T 01:54 Z
• Definitely Keep. It has a purpose, the same one as all the other slang articles have. If you delete this one you have to delete every one. Sure, the words may seem offensive, but they solve it's purpose --> they tell you slang words about body parts. Why delete an article anyway? If you don't like it, don't go to the page anymore! If young kids want to know slang words, and wikipedia deletes them, then they'll find them somewhere else. Therefore there's no point in deleting this. Walter Simons 8:33 AM EDT June 3rd 2005
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete (or rewrite as an article about body parts slang), possibly move whatever can be verified to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain as I created the article by separating from Sexual slang. I would vote to keep obviously. This is indeed encyclopedic, although it's the kind of article that can get out of hand if not watched. I'm normally a deletionist, but this article is actually informative! Especially for parents trying to get a grip on what their kids are talking about. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a good compromise would be to require that the words in the list be sourced. If this ends up being deleted, I'm going to have to merge it back into sexual slang (which passed the VfD test), as I really don't want to see this wealth of info destroyed. Normally, I won't take a stand like this, but this is an exception. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I found this list valuable. - Stoph 04:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer to Wiktionary, since most people are saying they are just definitions
• Keep Come on its funny!

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.