Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock block (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (18 delete/7 keep). — FireFox 11:22, 28 May '06

[edit] Cock block

DRV decided to overturn the last AfD result as inconclusive, and to relist here for the purpose of gaining a clear consensus. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - i have heard the term and think with a proper article it could belong here. However it reads like a segment of 'how to get laid for beginners' and needs to be more encyclopedic. Else merge into a seduction related article. THE KING 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepTranswiki--I heard this phrase a lot when I was in college, and it was pretty established then. Good call, Bastique. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is notable as urban slang, there's not enough content to justify anything beyond a wiktionary entry. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the above entry. I am also unconvinced with the Spanish term being "violinist" Gretnagod 16:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transwiki to Wiktionary. Bastique▼parler voir 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep or transwiki It's absolutely a notable term. Whether or not there's enough content to justify staying in WP as opposed to going to the Wiktionary, I'm not sure. But either way, this should definitely not be deleted. By the way, did anyone see the ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Google hits? [1] -- Kicking222 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Bastique. But I gotta ask...why was the consensus on the last AfD Delete if it got 5 Keep votes and 3 Delete votes? (Yes, I know that votes aren't everything, but at the very least, that's a no consensus...) -- Grev 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete from Wikipedia. It is nothing more than an unabridged dictionary definition. In the full history of this page, no version ever went beyond a mere definition. It has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. If you must, replace this page with a cross-wiki redirect to the Wiktionary page. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Delete Brought to us by the same people that want to see pussy fart and queef in the encyclopedia. This has already been transwikied. I don't forsee any future encyclopedic expansion for this slang term, and furthermore it is likely there will be another word for this in ten years. Can we please keep the fratboy-cruft neologisms out of the encyclopedia? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and put me down for 'keep' for the next AfD on this article as well. - Richardcavell 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice as per above. Since it has already been transwikied, nothing else needs to be done Hobbeslover 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an already transwiki'ed dicdef, so blather about how "notable" the term is utterly pointless. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a really notable term 107,000 google hits slang is important too Yuckfoo 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the present article is original research and if it was cut down it would be a dictionary definition. Also it has already been transwikied. -- Kjkolb 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as the first two times. Useful, notable phrase, could be more than a dicdef if the right people work on it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete content is mere dicdef, we have a project for that called Wiktionary as its already been transwiki'd it doesnt belong here. WP:NOT Urban Dictionary, WP:NOT a slang guide, WP:NOT a phrase book. Oh and WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS...etc...  ALKIVAR™ 07:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete till it hurts. -- GWO
  • Keep notable, slightly more than dictdef. --MishaMisha 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - Definitely a notable phrase, but not suitable for a Wikipedia entry. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an already transwikied dictionary definition. I would not object to a soft redirect to Wiktionary a la Butterface. Thryduulf 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef and how-to, two WP:NOTs; pointless as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I stand with the previous delete comments as forsaid; this is an encyclopedia we are meant to be writing at the end of the day, not a list of obscure slang definitions. Jhamez84 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Might be transwiki'ed into a slang dictionary, but it's probably not appropriate for Wiktionary, either (even if it's there). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf Crazynas 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's a dictionary defintion that's already at Wiktionary. Erik the Rude 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; anything that's not a dicdef is OR and other nonencyclopedic crap. Postdlf 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an absolutely notable slang term. It is widely used and verifiable. (I remember Will Farrell using it on occasion.) The article could use sourcing, but this goes well above and beyond most neologisms and should be included here. Grandmasterka 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially since it's already moved to wiktionary. Garion96 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


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.