Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickpussy

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dickpussy

Dickpussy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

prod contested, no reason given. Article to me is unverifiable (Personally, I am not going to the trouble of finding the Playboy article in question.) But even if it is verified, I don't think this is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Non-notable neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (dicktionary?). It also sounds like nonsense and/or something made up in school one day. —Travis^talk 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per both of the foregoing comments. No WP:RS, nonsense, and crap. --Evb-wiki 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• lololololololololol. Seriously though, Strong Delete. Belongs in Urban Dictionary, not here. TheLetterM 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and it isn't even listed there. —Travis^talk 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - even if it is a legitimate term there are insufficient sources to expand to a full article. Bridgeplayer 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's not patent nonsense, but violates WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO and is unsourced. Hell, snowball delete to avoid others wasting their time here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Bogus dickdef. Edison 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the wise arguments above. --mordicai. 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as... um... dicdef. Jakew 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Dickdelete save it for urban dictionary (not even there?) Bulldog123 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't seen many better candidates for snowball closure than this. —Travis^talk 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BJAODN perhaps? Carlossuarez46 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Helping.Brusegadi 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, move to BJAODN. Melsaran 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, and also per WP:POV. LOZ: OOT 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment I think its a dicdef at most, but do I understand the nom to say she thinks it is unreferenced because she wont go to the trouble of finding the reference? How does that contribute to building an encyclopedia?DGG (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG, you best be joking. My library doesn't carry back issues. If yours does, go ahead and verify. And if they don't, you can spend the money to find a copy to buy and verify. Plus, we have been through this before: Not my place to supply verification. Original author knows I prod'd the article. If it is so important to them, they can verify. Plus, as a straight woman, I have no interest in looking at playboy. Plus, I will say again. Even if verified, it ain't wiki worthy. Now go out and find the issue yourself DGG!!! Postcard Cathy 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, give me a citation. The author must at least supply a page number for the Playboy source. As a straight man, I don't usually read the articles. So, unless it was on a tattoo, . . . . --Evb-wiki 03:17, 16 August 2007 (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.