Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quim (slang) (2nd nomination)

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. Dict-def, already an entry at wikitionary.[1]. Pastordavid (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quim (slang)

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

This article is a dictionary definition - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and slang/idiom guides are specifically discouraged by policy. Additionally none of the sources given are actually about the word - the definition given on the page is not even sourced - they just show it being used, simply showing that a neologism word has been used does not mean it should have an article, in most of the cases it is not even possible to derive any intended meaning from the use of the word. Guest9999 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Its been used since 1735 at least, so I don't think you could qualify it as a neologism (unless we're talking in geological time terms here). It's also already beyond dictionary size and scope, and could probably be expoanded further. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply - The article contians a definition, the etymology and the first known usage - all of which are well within the scope of a dictionary. The uses section as it currently is might not belong in a dictionary but I don't think it belongs in an encylopaedia article either. Imagine if the article for cool attempted to list every usage. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Speedy Keep: OY, Nom, please re-read the first AfD (see how I'm assuming you already read it before re-nominating it ;). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply - I did read the first nomination and felt that the reasons given for keeping the article did not convince me that there would still be a concensus to keep it or that my concerns are unfounded. Most of the keep votes seemed to be directed at the nominator, few gave any rational at all and the ones that did rarely refered to any guidelines or polcies regarding inclusion. You yourself have not said why you feel that this article meets the speedy keep criteria. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Comment: Keeping in mind CCC, the previous consensus was perfectly clear. To me, this appears to be a snowball nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you say consensus can change and as I mentioned above I felt that the last discussion was hampered by questions concerning the motivation of the nominator, as well as the fact that few of the contibutors to the discussion even gave reasons for their view. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, as long as you believe there is a chance that this discussion will reach a "delete" decision, your nomination is acceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The previous AfD discussion seems to have been biased by accepting the false assertion that the term dates back to Chaucer and the dubious view that any word used by Chaucer should have a dictionary-style entry in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary). --Paularblaster (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- this belongs in Wictionary IMHO. But it's not a neologism. I think I've seen it used in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.Merkinsmum 01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I was incorrect in my use of the word neologism - which I agree the subject in question is not. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]]

• Delete. (Is "Merge to Wictionary a valid suggestion?) Per nom, it's a blatant dict def. Textbook, even. eaolson (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia; transfer to wiktionary - as per WP:WINAD. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to me that there's a parallel between this and cunt. Both have long term usage, interesting etymology and a right to be in an encyclopaedia. When it gets mentions like this it's gotta be a keeper! If it's good enough for Chaucer, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Anyway, it gives the kids another dirty word to look for :) --WebHamster 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Chaucer did not use this word (attested by OED back to 1735 brothel slang): you would be thinking of a 1967 modern English translation of the Canterbury Tales. --Paularblaster 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Move any relevant, referenced content to the Wiktionary page, and delete. There's nothing worthwhile here that goes beyond what should be in a dictionary entry. Definitions of slang words don't belong in an encyclopedia.--Michig 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. On the grounds that this is a dictionary definition. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: words are just words. this word has a very long history. words in themselves cannot hurt. censorship is NOT what wiki is all about. this entry gives a historical context to the word which dictionaries generally don't. let's not go down the road of petty censorship folks look at the case of lenny bruce! 20:15 5th December 2007 (GMT)--Pax681

• Your suggestion that those of us in favour of deletion are would-be censors in deeply insulting - I, for one, would be just as much in favour of deleting "thurible" if that was a comparable instance of dicdef, and am perfectly happy to keep "cunt" because that is a proper article. The entry in the OED, in fact, gives more of a history of the word than this supposedly "encyclopedic" article does, and the only room for growth is as a trivia page of "films and TV shows in which the word "quim" is used" (a direction the article is already heading in). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

* it's good enough for Robert Burns who used it MANY times in this collection of poetry http://www.robertburns.org.uk/merrymuses.htm

God Bless Him as Here's a Health to Quim - Robert Burns

and also for Chaucer translations. what this boils down to is indeed a form of cenrorship. it's only a word, just a word, with a legitimate history and used by serious and regarded authors, poets and others. now according to the oxford dictionary and word ceases to be slang after ten years of constant use by the masses.......hmmm when was chaucer translated with this word used as a substitute for cunt?... when was Burns? well, it's a word in common usage now too. given time it may even grow to include some stuff about Burns and Chaucer translations i will add to give it the proper historical context. just because you see it as a silly word , doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. this is not being being insulting , nor is it me being pretentious. it's a word, with a history and deserves an entry to show this history. to remove this history and the word from wiki IS censorship , defined by the very act of removing it. 03:33 6th December 2007 (GMT)--Pax681

Nobody suggests that it is a "silly word", but an un-encyclopedic article. Try to address the issue, rather than trying to read minds: you are, in fact, being insulting by warrantlessly ascribing low motives to your interlocutors. You give perfectly good reasons for keeping the word in a dictionary, but Robert Burns (not to mention 20th-century translators of Chaucer) used many words that would not make encyclopedia entries. What you have to do is demonstrate that this is not one of them, rather than fling insults and name-drop poets. Saying that writers used a word still doesn't take the article beyond the entry in OED. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to !vote multiple times. Please strike one of your Keeps. sh¤y 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - absolute dictionary content (definition, etymology, first known use, and nothing more). There's really nothing more to say. This issue has nothing to do with censorship or neologism status, and there is no way you can compare this article to cunt, which is VASTLY more encyclopedic. The article in question, as I said, is nothing but a dictionary definition, and belongs in a dictionary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki if needed then Delete. This is a dic def pure and simple. Nuttah (talk) 20:45, 9 December 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.