Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quim (slang)

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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quim (slang)

Quim (slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If this bad faith nom isn't closed, then Speedy Keep - The nom is inaccurate as quim isn't a neologism, the article isn't unreferenced, it DOES meet verifiability requirements, and it's NOT original research. Anchoress 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - a reference pointing to a slang dictionary means WP:WINAD, sorry. Moreover, a slang dicdef does not establish that the word has been the subject of (not merely mentioned in) multiple, non-trivial published works" WP:N. Moreover, the examples of Uses are unreferenced. And, IF the ability to merely point to uses of a slang word is sufficient to make it notable (and it is not), THEN that means that every single entry in a slang dictionary for which examples of the word-in-use can be found is worthy of an article. Hardly, because WP:WINAD. Dictionaries already contain examples of words in use. CyberAnth 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable term, heavily documented, dating back to Chaucer. -- Fan-1967 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepSpeedy Keep and Close Article looks good, seems to meet requirements posted in nom. Navou talk 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The nominator seems to be on somethng of a crusade at the moment. Sigh. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: ...and a claim of WP:NEO on an article that specifically cites The Canterbury Tales makes it quite clear nominator's just boilerplating the nominations, without even bothering to see if they apply. Fan-1967 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Chaucer's language is not notable, then we should delete Nunnery references in all Shakspeare articles, and Then get on to Dante Aligheri, Milton, and so on... ThuranX 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is fine. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • ...except for that it's "Shakespeare". =) --Dennisthe2 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as another in a series of this nominator's attempts to remove sexual slang from WP. Tarinth 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep unless we put up every word before 1343 (Chaucer's birth) as a neologism. I'd also heard this used in southern Scotland as an insult, but the final consonant more of an 'mn' than an 'm'. SkierRMH 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

  • Speedy keep, sorry but I cannot assume good faith any further. Sources, notability are all there, everything is there, what else can I say? This is violating WP:POINT. Terence Ong 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per defective nomination. This is about a person not a slang def for a body part. Please read the articles before nominating for deletion. Edison 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Restored keep vote previously blanked by nominator CyberAnth. He nominated the article Quim, then seeing my Keep vote and reason, rather than notifying me on my talk page to take another look after changing the nomination to the present article for the slang term, just deleted my vote. This clearly violates Wikipedia policy and is unacceptable. Now the vote is still keep because the term dates back to Shakespeare, Chaucer et al. Further such actions should be examined for appropriate sanctions. Edison 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Slang dictionary definition - no more no less. No basic encyclopaedic content. - fchd 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Being in dictionary of modern slang refutes the WP:N WP:V and WP:NEO claims. The article in its current form is not a dicdef, nor is it original research. Not one claim of the deletion proposal holds. Akihabara 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Slang dicdef plus trivial list of usage examples (so if I create an article for any other word and include a list of uses in pop[ culture it won't be a dicdef? I don't think so). It's a dictionary definition. That's what Wiktionary is for. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speeedy keep - irresponsible or bad faith nomintion in violation of WP:POINT, just like all these other bad nominations Johntex\talk 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [1] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [2]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN. --- RockMFR 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep And this is getting very tiresome. Gretnagod 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Albatross2147 23:48, 6 January 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.