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 of the debate was KEEP [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary #3, WP:V, WP:NOR Kgf0 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this extremely valuable research tool!
• Keep chad
• Keep feedyoureye
• Delete (nominator) - I nominated this now to go in tandem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang as it violates the same policies. However, I would be in favor of moving the few paragraphs that consititute an article about sexual slang to Sexual slang which currently redirects to the nominee List of. --Kgf0 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: for further detail on reasoning see this brief discussion. --Kgf0 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ifnord 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim greatly and move to sexual slang over redirect (per Kgf0), but keep a select few examples. Add a interwiki link to wiktionary as needed, or... is there a wikithesaurus? that would be more appropriate in this case. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Molotov (talk)
  23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Got to vote Keep here. Don't see the issue with OR or V. Article is encyclopedic and people are contributing. --JJay 00:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I too see this as a clear keep. These are terms that have commonly been in use in popular culture (therefore not OR or V). It's also, whether the submitter wants to hear this or not, one of the kinds of things that people come to wikipedia for. We're not urban dictionary (thank god), but we're not Encyclopedia Brittanica either -- and that's part of our draw. I'd like to keep most of this around, but if it helps to build consensus, I would support trimming, and/or changing it from a list to more of an article-type article, and/or moving it to sexual slang. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Private Butcher 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Cleanup (note: see my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2) Worthwhile look at vulgate (and vulgar) vernacular. Youngamerican 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. There are issues with people introducing protologisms, but it does often prevent them from being created as articles, and gives a good redirect target if they do. — brighterorange (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- it does often prevent them from being created as articles- Excellent point. --JJay 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP!! This article provides good information on slang words. Don't clean it up, how are people going to know these terms if they are cleaned up?
• Keep. But cleanup possibly. Not many lists of this magnitude are found elsewhere on the web. -Andrew 06:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It!!! It is for mere enjoyment. No one is being hurt by this article. The title describes the article so people should know what to expect. If you are offended, then don't look at it.

I see the Wikipedia as a catalouge of the world's knowledge in a funsize wrapper. Like it or not this page represents a portion of that knowledge. If the Wikipedia should remain an interesting and useful tool in this regard it must include articles such as these.

Claifying my position since pretty much everyone reacted to what they expected I might say instead of reading what I actually said: I am not offended. It is enjoyable. "Cleanup" means format and contents, not language (WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors). The issue is not so much whether this information belongs - clearly there is consensus that Wikipedia needs an article on sexual slang. Rather is issues as I see them, and the appropriate subjects of an AfD, are: (a) Does the article belong at List of sexual slang or at sexual slang? (b) Should the article contain a comprehensive list of slang terms in violation of clearly stated policy, or should that policy itself perhaps be changed? (c) If the article is kept, how are we to police the creeping neologisms, or is it fine for me to start calling my penis "William the Rod of Infinite Pleasure" and add that to the list? There is a general consensus that information on Wikipedia be verifiable and notable - how many of these terms really fit that description, and shouldn't terms be moved to Wikipedia anyway? I don't think the presence of this information is harmful in any way—quite the contrary, I'd like it to stay available insofar as it is verifiable and notable—I just don't think it belongs in the place where it currently lives. --Kgf0 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your clarification. To respond to point c that you make -- this list should be held to the same standard of veribiability as everything else (or perhaps better, as sometimes we don't hold that up as high as we should). Also, I personally think that place and format are somewhat irrelevant, because if we really do follow verifiability, the list is not going to be terribly long. So, basically, do we want our slang in a list or a paragraph or two? (You will note that my vote is actually not that far off from yours -- this information should stick around, but I am currently a bit laissez-faire as to where.) --Jacquelyn Marie 05:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAlthough I dislike slang, I have to keep up with it in order to understand what my parents say.--HistoricalPisces 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.