Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douche (Slang Term)

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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douche (Slang Term), Douche (disambiguation)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is already an entry at Wiktionary. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

n.b. There is now also Douche (disambiguation), which is not needed if this page goes, so I am adding it to this nomination.

• Delete, as per nom. "Douche" has got to be one of the lamest insults ever. --King of All the Franks 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Douche is a commonly used insult and the information contained on this page is merely transfered from other pages that already contained this information on the Wikipedia.{{unsigned|Madrake}
  • But Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang terms, and "douche" does not seem to have gained enough use as others, such as fuck. --King of All the Franks 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. I helped write this page, and I've been noticing the word crop up more and more in comedy. There is certainly a difference between someone looking for a general definition for the feminine product and someone looking for a general definition on the slang term. Also, Merovingian, your personal feelings on whether the insult is lame is not germane. Finally, Wikipedia might not be a dictionary of slang terms, but includes pages on "batty boy", "breeder", "gimp", all of which are used less often in a public setting than douche. If you feel strongly on that, please also ask for deletion for those pages too. -- User: NYYW
  • And also, I looked at the douche page on wiktionary, and all it has for slang is: "slang an insulting term used to mean "stupid" generally, but also sometimes it is used in reference to an ugly person." It is far outside the realm of the wiktionary to include the myriad links and useful information we did on the douche (Slang Term) page.
    • Useful information like "People who try to use the word portmanteau on Wikipedia pages are lame douches."? hmmmm. bikeable (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because the Wiktionary article is not finished yet. It is nowhere near featured article status. It needs proper quotations for each meaning, etymologies, pronunciations in all relevant dialects, spoken pronunciations, any necessary usage notes, an inflection line for the noun, and (yes) links to related terms like douchebag. If you want to make Wiktionary better, writing articles in completely the wrong project is not the way to do it. Uncle G 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • breeder is about an occupation and gimp is a disambiguation article, by the way. Neither are dictionary articles. Uncle G 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Douche Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I doubt anyone will enter in Douche (Slang Term) when they're trying to look up Douche -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just an overgrown dicdef. Gazpacho 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, same as above Argyrios 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• This is a dictionary article written in the wrong project, and as Bikeable point out, it's a bad dictionary article, at that. The meanings section is multiply redundant, the article having been padded out in an attempt to make it look like an encyclopaedia article, and whilst the "common uses" would do as examples at Wiktionary, Wiktionary aims for proper dated and attributed quotations from published works (to show the history of a word in actual use) rather than contrived examples where possible (although contrived examples will do until proper quotations come along). Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom Tedernst | talk 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Movementarian 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while this subject may be worthy of an entry, such a thing would look at the origins of the word and some very early uses such as in The Lords of Discipline, no mention of the word "douchebag" is even mentioned which is really where the word came from. I think it would be better to start from scratch than try to salvage anything here, except maybe the links. -Drdisque 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The article goes beyond the dictionary definition of "douche." Fuck is also a word in the dictionary, yet it merits its own wikipedia article because of its extensive content. The content in douche is not quite as extensive as fuck but it's enough to distinguish itself from a dictionary entry. DrIdiot 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it does not go "beyond the dictionary definition of" the word. It contains nothing that a dictionary article wouldn't also contain. You have a misguided notion of what dictionary articles contain, that is apparently that they contain a few sentences or sentence fragments and nothing more. Dictionary articles are not short, and Wiktionary is not paper, either. There are dictionary articles on Wiktionary that bring up the article length warning. Uncle G 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If kept, and I advise against, the original form "douchebag" should be mentioned. Douche is just shorthand for that. Crunch 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mere dicdef. I don't even see anything worth transwiking. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For those of us who aren't ubernerds, can we please avoid using words "dicdef" and "transwiking" in our discussion of this page? You make it sound like you're planning a sex change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrake (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Such words are common shorthand on AfD. They have stable meanings, and are readily intelligible. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please follow the link and/or read the Guide to deletion which defines many of the terms commonly used in these discussions. The Guide is prominantly linked in the deletion notice on the page.
• Merge into List of pejorative names or similar Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hardly notable, just a catch prhase, get it out of here--Nn-user 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's 10th edit. CDC (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Re-add to other article.Crumbsucker 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete It is a valid insult/slang term (as much as any other covered on wikipedia) and is well explained in the article, far more so then wikitionary can or is explaining it, more so as a insult/slang it is diffrent enoungh to warrent not being merge into the douche bag (product) article. --BerserkerBen 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a misguided notion of what dictionary articles can contain. Wiktionary can cover everything covered by this article, and then some. Uncle G 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No need to get rude, perhaps if you added the information from the douche (slang) article on wikipedia to wikitionary "and then some" then your argument would be validated and no longer arguable.--BerserkerBen 01:46, 12 January 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.