Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual slurs

• Delete most of these I have never heard in my life, and it seems people are making them up or using obscure ones. --Revolución (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Remove the obscure and/or madeup ones and it should be OK. Moving the top content into a separate article on the subject wouldn't hurt as well. AlbertR 03:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. As per Albert R. Additionally this kind of glossary is IMHO legitimate content - the content of language and the variation between dialects of English is fascinating. Cspalletta, 16 August 2005
• Delete—Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. What use could this possibly be to anyone? Notable terms have their own articles. Non-notable terms are not encyclopedic. --Tysto 05:29, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never heard of most of these, and I'm not exactly sheltered. I'm inclined to move the content to the talk page and advise the editors that they need to cite the usage of these slurs in print or else they're not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; comprehensive but inappropriate. Erwin Walsh
• No encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sex-related slang. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I recognize problems with this page. The principal problem is a lack of citations resulting in a mass of unverified information. It also acts as trollbait. However I don't see this as a problem best solved by deletion. Compare with List of ethnic slurs. I'd favour a fairly radical cleanup. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: rather unencyclopedic and magnet for trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not sure how to keep this from becoming Urbandictionary. Rkevins82 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Vozenilek. MicahMN | Talk 21:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The scope of the list is very unclear and a very obvious troll 'n' vandal heaven. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If WP has a list of racial slurs which has been put up for deletion but for which the consensus is that it should be kept, surely this is in the same category? -- Ledow 16:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are problems with a list of unverified information. But deletion of information is never justified. However, I think a cleanup is in order. user:Aronomy 17:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's ridiculous. Deletion of some information is certainly justified. That's what this forum is about. Vanity, advertising, ephemera, slang definitions, and unverifiable junk should all be deleted, true or not. --Tysto 03:27, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
• Delete. Very unclear as to criteria for inclusion. This seems to be more a list of sexual slang than sexual slurs. I agree that there is plenty of opportunity here to insert made-up terms since the list as a whole is virtually impossible to verify. And if someone wants to insert words they just made up or are directed at a particular orientation or race, it creates work for others to delete them. At the very least I think this is perhaps more appropriate for Wiktionary. 23skidoo 02:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:06
• Strong Keep. This is just another example of the prigs that want to make Wikipedia "politically correct". User:WehrWolf 2005 August 15
• Delete. Most lists are suspect anyway, especially one of as little value as this. Lists without any context or background are pointless. Some of these words might be deserving of their own articles, which could explore their history and background and usage, but most of them belong in a dictionary of some sort, not in an encyclopedia. Peyna 17:13:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced, and full of dubious neologisms. A number of our lists have these same problems. -Willmcw 18:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't it time we quit being a bunch of sensitive Sallys? (and more like insensitive Harrys?) User:Can'tStandYa 22:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.  Grue  07:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very Interesting. User:CaptainJackWill 08:45, 16 Aug 05 (UTC)
• Comment. IMO, User:CaptainJackWill, User:Can'tStandYa, and User:WehrWolf are all sock puppets of user:155.84.57.253 (who, not incidentally, contributed a large part of this article as well as other similar lists). -Willmcw 20:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Counter Comment. Willmcw has since removed his block after this user explained that several other users share a networked cable connection in their workplace with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. Can'tStandYa 08:24, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
    • No, I removed the IP block because that is standard protocol when blocking sock puppet accounts. The similarities extend far beyond a shared IP address. I don't know where you sent your explanation, but I've never seen it. -Willmcw 20:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you need to update your email address in your profile. Here is a condensed version of the email: "Dear Sir or Madam, My Wiki club has asked me to contact you about removing the block. Our club has several registered and a few unregistered members. We all work for a large federal agency and share a networked cable connection with hundreds of other people, and therefore have the same IP address. We frequently meet for lunch and discuss wiki topics. Thank you in advance, Can'tStandYa" The similarities you say you observed may result from lunch conversations and common interests (we are all geek/engineer types). Additionally, user:155.84.57.253 is not a single person but a composite of several unregistered users - I'm trying to get them all to register to close down user:155.84.57.253 Entries as 155.84.57.253 also occur when registered users lose their log-in in the middle of a session, and when registered users forget to log-in. Can'tStandYa 2005 August 18
• Keep. I think the page is indeed useful. There is a page entitled List of Racial Slurs. This page could obviously do with a clean up. However, I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant for someone perhaps researching homophobia or misogyny to garner some insight into the terms of abuse that are used towards gays, women, an other minorities. - ExRat 03:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with user ExRat. Shran 04:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, impossible to maintain as none are sourced. If we only accept sourced ones the list would be sorely incomplete. Glad someone finally VfDed this, even if it does survive. --fvw* 04:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and add citations. Saswann 19:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems fine 2 me -TonyTheTerrier 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it gives a valuable insight into the evolution and sociology of language.
• Keep, It is very informative on words in the english language and teaches us how they came to be.

• Keep, wow I just found out about [[Ladyboy]s / Kathoey only because of this list - I would never have read about their social problems in Thailand without this List of sexual slurs. Keep, keep, keep.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.