Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business slut

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 delete. JeremyA 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business slut

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Oh joy, yet another rant poorly disguised as the explanation of a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and all the supposed "facts" about what 'business sluts' are like are original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. OTOH, perhaps I should try a Google search on "business slut" just to, uh, make sure it really is non-notable, yeah, that's the ticket... -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but only on the grounds that the article contradicts itself, and thus can cause a rip in the universe. See 'A Business Slut is a female' vs. 'A male variety of the Business Slut is also widespread' in the same article. Please delete to protect the future of our human race. Mceder 05:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Business slut is a colloquial term as legitimate as tea bagging or cleveland steamer, both of which are approved pages on Wikipedia. So to some extent Wikipedia IS a slang dictionary. We feel this term should have the same documentation. We question the supposition that Google is the best means for determining the notability of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02 05:59:24 UTC.
• Suggestion duly noted Much thanks to Mceder, the potential dimesional rift in the entry has been partially corrected. We commend your efforts to maintain the structural integrity of our dimensional fabric.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.adamg (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — Kbh3^rdtalk 06:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps Antaeus Feldspar should refocus his attentions from denying the world's expansion of slang vocabulary to adding to his bio page.MR.AWESOME 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "MR.AWESOME" is a newly-created meatpuppet. -- Curps 06:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. -- Curps 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources and, searching, I can find no sources. (Antaeus Feldspar probably found the results of xyr search to be disappointing. ☺) Notability isn't an issue. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Gazpacho 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, OR. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-02 11:15Z
• Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 17:02, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Ajwebb 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, term is not notable. Cedars 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, useless without pics ;) Fagstein 07:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though Mceder's reasoning is amusing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as everyone not anonymous wrote. GRuban 20:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verify, and NPOV.-- Marvin147 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Marvin147 (talk • contribs) has 33 edits, of which 25 are to AfD or MfD discussions.

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.