Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not safe for work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not safe for work

Not safe for work (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This page is about an internet neologism. See WP:NEO. The article offers no documentation in verifiable secondary sources and seems to be composed entirely of original research. I don't see room for improvement unless someone can find a treatment of the phrase in some outside source. nadav 08:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. For goodness sake, the article is over two years old. This is a case where the authors felt the term was so widespread that external refs were superfluous. nadav, is 8 million Google hits (with this article at the top!) not enough for you? -- RHaworth 09:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the phrase is definitely notable, but as the neologism page emphasizes, that is not enough. It MUST be discussed in secondary, verifiable sources. Google hits and popularity mean nothing here. I invite you to find outside documentation of the phrase. nadav 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Christopher Null. "No Longer Safe for Work: Blogs", Wired News, 2005-10-24.? Uncle G 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Did you read this through? The body of the article does not mention the phrase once. The fact that a variant of the phrase appears in the title does not make this a secondary source about the phrase (see WP:NEO). nadav 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Transwiki to Wiktionary per below after I finally found a reliable source defining the phrase (Bergstein, Brian. "FeedRinse steps in nicely as an information-overload tool", Buffalo News (AP), 2006-07-03, pp. C3.) nadav 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Speedy keep and rewrite to focus not on definitions of phrases but the question of workplace standards for content and what kind of content gets tagged as nsfw. nadav 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
          • What makes you think that it has to mention a specific phrase? Wikipedia is not a dictionary with articles on words and phrases. It's an encyclopaedia, with articles on concepts, people, places, events, and things. I suggest that you ask yourself the question that I posed below: What is the concept that this encyclopaedia article is about? What is the concept that the aforementioned Wired News article is about? What is the concept that articles such as Richard Leader (2006-01-16). Not Safe for Work: The Reasonable Patriarch Standard (PDF). Adonis Mirror. are about? Indeed, what is the concept that the Buffalo News article that you read was about? Answer those, and you'll see the way to fix this article that doesn't involve deletion. Uncle G 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary (if possible). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no matter how popular a phrase is. --Charlene 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia. It has no need of encyclopaedia articles that tell readers how NSFW content is adjudged by people, what it typically comprises, and what relative rating scale between various warnings exists. (The preceding sentence contains a hint, by the way.) Uncle G 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, absurdly widespread as both an acronym and a phrase. --humblefool® 10:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary of phrases. Encyclopaedia articles are about the people/concepts/places/events/things that the phrases denote. FAQ, mentioned below, is actually about the concept of frequently asked questions, notice. So the question to ask onesself is: What is the concept, denoted by the title, for this encyclopaedia article to be about? Uncle G 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per Charlene. --Howrealisreal 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ZOMGZ KEEP. Cf. FAQ, LOL, IANAL, etc. -- Plutor talk 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. DCEdwards1966 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. Very well-known neologism that should be on the list. --- RockMFR 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a very widely used phrase on the interweb. Lankiveil 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, and article could be expanded a bit. Nadav, chill -- ruleslawyering is Not Cool. Haikupoet 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, or ideally punt it off to the Jargon File where it belongs. Pete Fenelon 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I also agree that this is a very widely used phrase on the interweb.Cman 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a very common phrase used on the internet. Yamaguchi先生 22:45, 14 November 2006
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Not_safe_for_work_f9f8.html"