Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty trombone (2nd nomination)

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 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty trombone

Rusty trombone (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, has not improved since last AfD. CyberAnth 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable, can be expanded. Article needs more time. Navou talk 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • While I don't disagree with your keep opinion, the article has been around for a full year. It certainly does not "need more time". -- Kicking222 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You get no argument here, I need to be more clear instead of expecting the group to read my mind. To clarify what I meant by time, I was including effort also, but I should have just said that. Regards, Navou talk 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Offensive, but does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. --Strait 07:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for me it's TMI! But it is not a neologism, is used in pop media (therefore not WP:N) & has improved a bit. Could use a bit more work, but not worthy of deletion. SkierRMH 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Also, nominator mentions that it "has not improved since last AfD". The last AfD resulted in keep, and it improving was not a stipulation for it to stay, so this is an invalid reason for deletion. VegaDark 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Obscure but well documented term, not a neologism. Atom 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is notable, verifiable, and definitely not a dicdef, and I also support VegaDark's reasons for inclusion of this article in WP re: the last discussion. -- Kicking222 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Common term in pop culture. About 6 months ago I heard it and wondered the exact meaning - I found the answer on wikipedia. Some may consider the term vulgar, but I wasn't expecting an article about Mother Theresa. Dlodge 18:00, 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) 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, article doesn't need to have improved since last time as it was a keep result. Surely this is a WP:SNOW case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mallanox (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep seems verifiable, Wikipedia is not censored.--RWR8189 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is it just me, or am I sensing a pattern here. Silensor 03:38, 9 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.