Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape shower

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rape shower

Tagged as "patent nonsense", but doesn't fit the definition we have. Abstain. -Splash^talk 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move to wikionary, seems like a real expression from the google hits. Kappa 05:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. It seems like a dictdef, but it is definitely not encyclopaedic. – AxSkov (☏) 06:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. WP:NOT a dictionary, phrasebook, or slang reference. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. I oppose transwiki, or any use of this. Not every two word combination is worthy of an article in wiktionary. 255 unique hits for the exact term in google doesn't make something a real term. I suspect any combination of the word "rape" with another common word, will bring up plenty of similiar "hits" in Google. The word "rape" is (sadly) one of the many words some porno sites "stuff" in their keywords, to get hits. There are 255 web sites hoping to get customers looking for this, but that doesn't mean it's a real term (or expression). Without even opening the sites (which I'm not about to do), you can see from the Google snippets, that there are random words packed in for SEO reasons, which don't even form sentences. A term must be used regularly in proper sentences before it can even rise to the level of a "dicdef". --rob 10:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also possible that those 255 are using the same googlebait block. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without transwiking. I don't see any evidence that this phrase is actually used by anyone, and some coincidental hits on Google fail to demonstrate any use or notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without transwiki; the hits from a google search do not provide evidence that this phrase is in significant use and/or notable for the reasons given above. Sliggy 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: try googling "a rape shower". Kappa 12:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I did just now, and I see between a dozen and two dozen uses of the term non-randomly in context. That really amounts to very little. Also, we don't include ever properly used adjective/noun pair, so why would we we have a rarely used slang term (which uses a verb as an adjective). Is there a hot shower, fast shower, slow shower, quick shower, bad shower, good shower, etc... Now a few like "cold shower", might have such massive/widespread usage, that they're included as special cases. But, that takes an extra degree of usage. I assert such a term requires *more* than what would be required if we're talking of a single real word. In fact, a real word, requires no Google hits. Dictionaries are not there to provide every combination of words one might use. It's there to provide a list of words, and definitions, which users may combine themselves. Let's hope the good folks at wiktionary don't send this sucker back as "not a dicdef transwiki to wikipedia ". --rob 13:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: My google got 14 hits after excluding the very similar hits, a porn ad, ambiguous usage (e.g. is sitting in the shower crying the same thing?), and where the term had to be immediately explained on a web chat forum (i.e. it was not generally known). Is that in line with your findings? Sliggy 13:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't get many google hits, but it does get some, enough to indicate it might be in active use, so it should be given to wiktionary to let them decide if it meets their criteria or not. Dictionaries need to provide definitions of idioms, where a two-word combination does not mean the sum of its parts. The meaning of "rape shower" is non-obvious, unlike "quick shower" etc. Kappa 13:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying to simply make a mention of the term to people in wiktionary, or are you talking about going ahead and actually creating a dicdef entry in wiktionary. An actual dicdef should only be made *after* the term is verified. It's wrong to create something, with the intent of sparking a discussion on it. So, maybe, I'm not clear on what you propose. --rob 14:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
        • When things are moved to wikitionary, they go into a separate transwiki namespace, where wiktionarians can examine them at leisure. Kappa 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Shocked to discover I actually agree with Kappa one this one. If Transwiki let's the wiktionarians decide what to do, let them do it. It's certainly non-obvious ( well, to me, anyway ). WMMartin 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a notable term. Ashenai 12:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable term. Delete, do not transwiki. - Mike Rosoft 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no transwiki, per Thivierr. Barno 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without moving to Wiktionary. NatusRoma 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it is used as the article suggests, I vote to delete it from english usage too. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without transwiki.Vizjim 22:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This term's time has not yet come to be in an encyclpedia. DannyZz 23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Dicdef and possibly neologism. --MacRusgail 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MacRusgail. Shauri 20:08, 24 September 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.