Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaytarded

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Linuxbeak | Talk 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaytarded

Apparent neologism, but it has approximately 700 google hits, and provides (unreferenced) information on etymology. I felt that due to the (borderline) evidence of use, speedy deletion would have been inappropriate. Creidieki 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per nomination. - Creidieki 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is a unfortunately verifiable term being used Yuckfoo 22:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, where every adjective gets an article of its own. The dictionary is over there. Please explain what you think an encyclopaedia article by this title would be about. Uncle G 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh. Delete, neologism. 700 hits do not a word make. "Fanfuckingtastic" gets 17,500, but that article doesn't exist, either, and I don't see it as a conspicuous absence. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. --Ashenai (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - dicdef, and unencyclopedic. --MacRusgail 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- As much as I hate this article, I strongly disagree that it is a dictdef. It is an article about a word, true, but it also goes into the word's history and usage in detail. It may be unverifiable and poorly written, but it isn't a speedy candidate. Creidieki 2005-10-17 22:59:17 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC))
      • Dictionary articles are not speedy deletion candidates, but the etymologies/origins and usages of words are exactly what dictionary articles discuss (amongst other things). See yiff, an't, theater, Jock, and jock, for examples. Uncle G 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This is well into the realm of nonsense. --JJay 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Also unverifiable as it stands... who the heck is James Liechnitz? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original Research. D. G. 23:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, in all seriousness, the only problem with it is dictdef. The article itself is of course bollocks and nonsense-- but if it were not a dictdef, I'd say, keep it and clean it up. There is such a (neologistic, yes) word, but an australian by the name of Zechnitz didn't invent it. There's nothing to invent. You might as well boast of inventing drinking water through your nose. It's a stupid invention, and you didn't invent it; wherever there are fools in the world, they will discover it independently. D. G. 23:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletarted.  BD2412 talk 03:08, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.