Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taint

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It's not clear from the debate that it should be deleted, and so ordinary editorial methods will have to be deployed instead. -Splashtalk 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taint

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has a fair bit of history, starting as a disambig page of sorts[1], moving to a better disamig page[2] which actaully seem to just be dictionary definitions and then on to just nonsense about the sexual slang word.

Myself and Uncle G have been "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"ing on this article, and i've replace the content with a soft redirect to Wikipedia — {{wi}} — on a number of occasions.

Recently Cenestrad wrote a better article, but one I still feel to be a dictionary definition (see discussion at Talk:Taint#What to do?) and ignores the other — normal — meanings of taint which would require adding even more dict defs. So, I'd like to get a wider discussion/decision on this article, and if it should be properly deleted. Thanks/wangi 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a neologism that doesn't offer more than its definition, IMO. PJM 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Disambig page, per this revision. "tainted" data in Perl certainly deserves a mention on such a page (a known concept in Perl programming), and such a page should also mention the slang term (perhaps also including a link to Wiktionary). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: However consider the manual for style of dismbig pages: MoS:DP. Taint might well be a known concept in Perl (and I'm a Perl programmer and know it is) but we cannot have a disambig entry pointing to page that doesn't even mention the term (taint is not mentioned in the Perl article) - it would just be another dictionary definition. Thanks/wangi 14:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dictdef, a disambig page would be acceptable I guess but it would need to be protected as the dicdef has been reverted numerous times already. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no point having a disambig page because all the subjects being disambiguated are dicdefs. perl "taint" is just a specialised use of the normal meaning of the word. 'Tain't worth an article. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see what you're saying, but I feel that a user who enters "taint" into Wikipedia ought to get *something*... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with UkPaolo on that one. Aren't their certain substances in plastics which are 'taints'? Nonetheless this trash needs to be thrown out. Dan 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • clean and keep: there should be SOME mention of the meaning of the word as it has cutural meaning, but it should include other meanings as well. The term shouldnt be thrown out simply because its meaning is vulgar, but should instead be presented with definitions and links and historical reference (I beleive that HBO's Mr.Show was the first to popularize this term) that ARE NOT vulgar. Just because the term itself is childish and obscene, does not mean it has no signifigance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.73 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: I don't think anyone is concerned re vulgarity. Thanks/wangi 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect to perineum, per UkPaolo's logic that a wikipedia search of taint should lead to somewhere. If it led to a blank page, we will just have to do this all over again.Youngamerican 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: So a new-fangled definition would over-rule the traditional meaning of the word? Thanks/wangi 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I suppose so. A more-common usage of the word as opposed to the antiquated usage is moreso how I see it. Is taint still more commonly used to refer to spoilage in the vernacular of Scotland? It seems in America, anyhow, that you here it more often refering to the perineum. Youngamerican 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, in the UK I think you'd get a lot of blank looks if you were using taint in the sexual slang way - to me anyway it's an Americanism. Thanks/wangi 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Both good points... the other problem with deleting this article is that it will just lead to a recreation in the future... but I agree with Wangi that a redirect to just the new definition is not appropriate, since there are more fundamental definitions of the word. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
            • So what, we should have a dab to two dictdefs rather than a dictdef or a dictdef for a neologism? How's that again? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree it's a dicdef, but I don't think a neologism is fair... per Cenestrad googling will reveal it is more established than that. What would be a gain is to have something appropriate rather than nothing, should a user look for an article on Taint. In my opinion a dab page similar to [3] would be a start. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Should a reader look up "taint", and there is no article, xe will see this, which will point xem at Wiktionary and this. Should a reader look up "taint", and there is a soft redirect, xe will see this, which will again point xem at Wiktionary and this. Uncle G 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to me people are voting to delete this more on the basis of how they feel about the term than the valdity of the article. If you think the term is a neologism google it. You will find that it is an established term with the very meaning I put in the article. If you think the term is trash because it's lewd, I agree and I put that in the article. I don't agree that thinking a term is childish is reason to delete it. --Cenestrad 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not at all. The traditional usage is a dictdef, the neologism is a dictdef of a neologism. A disambiguation page would be between one dictdef and another. Quite an easy call, IMO! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please google this term if you think it is a neologism. I am sure you will find ample sources to insure you that it is an established and widley used term (if only in the U.S.). If you care to look you will find web sites dealing with Taint centered sexual fetishes, Taint humor (if it's funny is a matter of opinion) and a Taint magazine.I had suggested that a disambiguation page that would link to wikitonary for the older useage and a catergory on sexual slang for the newer (non-neologism) term. This would allow a place for articles such as Taint or choad. I think that this would benifit wikipedia by eleminating the temptation to post a joke article some seem to feel when they see the page is nonexisten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenestrad (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - this is a well-known slang term and anyone searching Wikipedia should at least be informed about it. --Liface 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment God I must be getting old.... the only meaning I know for taint is spoil, as in, you cant eat that food now, its tainted. This new meaning certainly makes the song "Tainted Love" an interesting listen.... 80.177.152.156 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Perineum -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is a very common term and should be expanded upon. As far as it being just a definition the page for the word "an" is nothing but numerous definitions, and at times that is enough. I cant think of much history that could be associated with this, simply letting the reader know its origins(if possible) and different meanings sometimes will have to suffice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
  • Keep but turn into a disambiguation page. The traditional meaning and the modern meaning should be listed, as well as the other meanings and references listed. I agree that one should be able to look up "taint" and get something. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles. They don't list meanings, and they don't magically invalidate the Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is explicit on this. Uncle G 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe this has the ultimate potential to be more than a dictionary article. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Howso? Youngamerican 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I must clarify that I meant that it ultimately has the potential instead of has the ultimate potential. I contend that it wouldn't fall entirely under the concept of a normal disambig page, but the information shown on the old disambiguation page presented earlier, could stand and be expanded on. In regards to the sexual/modern dicdef, it could ultimately be expanded to resemble other similar articles. Also, a link to Tainted Love couldn't hurt, either. Mind you, I feel quite silly arguing about taint. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. I can't quite accept it as a redirect, since that would hide a transwiki dictionary link. Thus, disambig - one to the traditional word, one as a link to the new one via perineum. Turnstep 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with redirecting this term to perineum is that it retains the meaning of the word but not the context. It is true that the perineum and the Taint are the same part of the body anatomically speaking but Taint is a vulgar term as opposed to a medical term and that needs to be noted. Also this eliminates the potential for the articles growth in regards to cultural references. As I mentioned above the term Taint is employed in American pop culture having been referenced by several television shows and comedians. Also it is the center of some individual’s sexual fetishes. All of this could add to a valid article which would be much more than a dictionary definition and go well beyond what a person would expect to find in an article on the perineum.--Cenestrad 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to apologize for forgetting to sign a comment I added earlier. Dwilke seems to think that this is a major issue and posted four edits concerning one unsigned comment. The apex for me was his elation of "It appears to be Censtrad!" Way to go Colombo but next time just ask me and I'll tell you if I was the author of a comment. This is the second time you have accused me of sockpuppeting and I am more than a little irritated. If I were to use such a trick don't you suppose I would log out first? I would also like to note that the comment in question was made as a post script to my vote on this subject earlier and did not contain a vote of its own. From now on I'll be more careful to sign my comments.--Cenestrad 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I really don't think Dan was accusing you of sock-puppeting. He was only marking your comment as having been made by you. Please assume good faith. He has made no accusations of sock-puppetry that I have seen. As to needing four edits: that might imply he needs help with the "show preview" button, but it doesn't accuse you of sock-puppetry. [[Sam Korn]] 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Had he only mentioned an unsigned article possibly being mine once I would have assumed good faith. However on an unsigned comment previously posted Dan had added “I wonder if this is the author?” (It was not.) I have no problem assuming good faith and being civil but a veiled accusation of sock puppeting could tip the balance in this debate and that I do have a problem with that.--Cenestrad 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I apologise if I insulted you. I was only slightly angry since I had to spend an inordinate amount of time, and edits trying to work out who had written that (and another unsigned edit). Sockpuppetry did not at all enter my head, in fact I was commenting that I wasn't expecting it to be a registered user who forgot to sign a post as per [[WP:~~~~]]. Also, I had no idea at the time that the person who had previously commented, unsigned whilst not even signed in, was not the author. Nor did I know it was you. Finally, "tip the balance"! Ridiculous. I would never consider doing something so, well, petty. I do not consider this article so important (nor would I ever give the author the pleasure), as to risk my own name using illicit means to get it deleted. In fact it seems that that is where it is destined anyway according to the consensus of the community. Dan 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I would ask that you not insult my intelligence by claiming that you were not trying to make it seem as if I were the hand inside a sock puppet but I doubt you would believe I have any intelligence to insult. So please don’t insult the intelligence of other wikipedia users. --Cenestrad 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I can see that this is probably pointless, since whatever I say will not make you believe me (or should that be admit to believing me), but I still wish to make it clear that I never set out to claim that you were involved in sockpuppetry, nor did that thought even cross my mind. Is that clear enough for you! It is now I who should be the most insulted. You have insulted my honour. If I had a glove I'd come over there and demand satifaction. I shall not reply to any more of this rubbish, but an Admin might. Good Day! Dan 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You don't own any gloves? Give me your address and I'll send you a pair my Mom made me. However coming over here and demanding satisfaction may not be necessary as I am glad to retract my statements since you have made it clear that you are no longer accusing me of sock puppetry. Good Day!:)--Cenestrad 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Nothing but slang meaning. not encyclopedic Mukadderat 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • replace with {{wi}} and protect: all meanings are dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This Wiktionary defintition includes all meanings. Thanks/wangi 09:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Which will turn Wikipedia into a ghost dictionary. Please don't. Deleting this will leave a empty page table which will point users to other projects just as easily. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • commentMy only problem with the wikipedia is not a dictionary argument is that it seems we are singling out this word before it even has a chance to expand. As I pointed out earlier the word "an" contains nothing BUT several definitions on its wikipedia page, whereas this site offers some historical backing as to the words origins, as well as a few links to other sites, and certainly has great POTENTIAL to grow. It seems as though the word has been continually deleted almost out of habit. If wikipedia is going to be hell bent on removing all articles that are JUST definitions it would seem a better policy to start with "an" and move down the list of other words/terms that have been there for a while and haven’t grown. Deleting this page will just result in some kid putting up a comedic response so why not instead start with a better suited article and instead allow it to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
    • Wrong in quite a number of ways:
      1. AN does not comprise "nothing but definitions". It comprises a list of hyperlinks to articles which would, by themselves, either be at AN/aN/an or have a redirect from there.
      2. "Historical backing as to the word's origins" belongs in the dictionary. Etymology is exactly what the dictionary is for. There are even etymology sections in the dictionary article already. Expanding an encyclopaedia article with such things is contrary to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and a dilution of effort, to boot.
      3. You are thinking of this article as an article about a word. ("It seems as though the word ...") Dictionary articles are about words. Encyclopaedia articles are about concepts/people/places/things/events. An encyclopaedia article by this title would be about taints, not about the word "taint". We already have taint for that.
      4. This article has not been "continally deleted". It hasn't ever been deleted at all. It has been replaced with a soft redirect encouraging editors to write an encyclopaedia article about taints if there is one, but to use the dictionary otherwise. The article as it currently stands is not an encyclopaedia article about taints, and is simply a bad duplicate of the dictionary article about the word "taint" that is in Wiktionary. A soft redirect is better than that.
      5. AN is a disambiguation article. It shouldn't grow into a dictionary article. That it hasn't is, therefore, a good thing.
    • Finally: why not instead start with a better suited article? — Because it has yet to be demonstrated that there is an encyclopaedia article about taints to be had. At most, therefore, this is a disambiguation article between perineum, corruption, and spoilage. Uncle G 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • comment okay finr replace the word "an" with "police academy" or any of the thousands of other words that are basically definitions and use the same argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 02:14:26
        • Still wrong. police academy is an article about police academies, and indeed, even in its current stub state, is not "nothing but a definition". Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that the definition on wikitonary for the slang meaning of Taint has been removed several times and was not posted at the time I wrote this article. It was restored by Uncle G on January 3.--Cenestrad 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No. It was the Webster 1913 meanings related to the use of a lance that were removed and then restored by me. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • wow uncle g. as a newbie to using wikipedia I cant believe how interested Ive gotten in "the great taint debate" of 2006. I was worried that perhaps Id lost my mind and might end up outside of wikipedias headquarters holding a SAVE THE TAINT sign. Its nice to see others on the opposing side are as fanatical in their beliefs(I wonder what will become of us when the agument is finally decided).
          Let me ask this then if as is okay because it contains ONLY hyperlinks to articles that stand on their own, why not offer hyperlinks to other articles in THIS entry to choad and or perinium. My point on the article continually being deleted is that while of cours THIS article hasnt been deleted(otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion) the word HAS had several entries over the last few months (my favorite being the one where it is stated "men have taints so they dont shit on their balls") This entry seems at least a ligitamit place to start as it does INCLUDE a hyperlink that can stand on its own.
          otherwise Uncle g , you have made very valid points, perhaps you may yet sway my vote and we will be seen and perhaps one day we will be seen arms locked chanting "WIKIPEDIA HAS NO TAINT" in triumphant victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-05 16:34:47
  • comment if it is decided to be kept and cleaned up here are some bits of info that might help in establishing it. There is a some what well known band with the name of taint. Mr. Show increased its populariuty by reintroducing the term into its sketches and even incorporateing TAINT the magazine. Taint piercing is considered very popular in some goth and/or metal band circles. Beth O keeps her taint completely shaven as per Howard Sterns wished according to him in several of his radio programs. I hope this will fullfill the requirements of making the article about specific taints as per uncle g's requests. I am not profiecent enough yet to create or add to an existing article but I though it may be some help for those that are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-05 22:47:01
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't make articles about things that might be uncyclopedic in the future. --Syrthiss 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I thought that a keep and clean up vote was meant to essentially do just that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 16:46:38
  • Delete neologism. Create dab page for the possible meanings if we need to. --Syrthiss 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The idea of a delete here kind of stinks, while a dab would be nuts, so I guess it should be somewhere in between, like a redirect (sorry guys, I couldn't resist). Youngamerican 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • comment to find fault with your entry one would either have to be not neccisaryly a dick..or an asshole... but something in between the two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs) 2006-01-06 16:53:02 (please Pickelbarrel, four tildes - ~~~~, it's not hard! wangi 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
      • No offense Wangi, but I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickelbarrel (talk • contribs)
        • I have left a number of messages on your user talk page to explain: User talk:Pickelbarrel. On Wikipedia talk pages, and more importantly these AfD entries you should always sign your comments. This is done by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment - Wikipedia will then expand that to your username and date when you hit "save page". If you don't do this some poor sod (which has been me recently) needs to pick through this discussions history to try and work out who said what. Thanks/wangi 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • [[[cooment]]]I want to offer a very sincere thanks to this link, even though I am not finished with all the points I am much wiser for having started reading it. I really didnt even know that I had talking point page until you just wrote this. I will do my best to look up the guidelines to try to keep from causing extra work for anyone. I had been simply wondering how everyone got their names printed in special print and mine was always labled unsigned even after I signed picklebarrel at the bottom. I would ask that you try to show a bit of patience however if I make a mistake in the future however, while the adding tildes is certainly not difficult it WAS a completely forien concept to me. To appologize for my earlier mistakes I will paraphrase the thoughts of Financial genius Timothy Dexter on the matter(after he recieved horrible reviews of the first edition of his book for not having put in any puntion of anykind in it) "As the nowing ones complain (of my earlier work for not having correct puntion) I put in A Nuf here and they may peper and solt as they plese" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pickelbarrel 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)picklebarrelPickelbarrel 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At this point I would like to request that any votes cast claiming the term is a neologism should be discarded. That argument has been made and rebutted and anyone still calling the term a neologism has not done one bit of research. They are simply labeling the term a neologism because they are not familiar with it. It seems fairly obvious that the point of an encyclopedia is to help familiarize a person with new terms and concepts as an encyclopedia containing only things you already know would be pointless. Secondly I would like to suggest that people have a look at the asshole article. This term is a reference to the anus but asshole deserves a separate article because it is different in context. If I called a person an anus I most likely would only get quizzical looks. On the other hand if I dubbed them an “Asshole” they would surely demand satisfaction. The same is true for perineum and Taint.--Cenestrad 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now now Cenestrad, I pitty the admin that has to wade through the discussion and try and sort out what the consensus is, but that's their job. After all, you're pushing your point of view here - don't see you asking for all votes asking to keep the dictionary def be ignored (Wikipedia is not a dictionary - a policy) ;) Have a good weekend/wangi 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The concept denoted by the slang sense of "taint" is exactly the same concept denoted by "perineum". There's no need to have two separate encyclopaedia articles for the same concept. The fact that "taint" can denote other concepts (specifically corruption and spoilage) is why this should be a disambiguation article amongst those three concepts. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So you would be just a comfortable with your doctor using the term Taint as perineum? It's not just concept that is important but context.--Cenestrad 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Only for a dictionary, not for an encyclopaedia. What I would be comfortable with is irrelevant. There is just the single concept here, just as there is with petrol/gasoline, squash/marrow (vegetable), chav/charva, and so forth. Usage notes for a word, such as whether it is preferable to its synonyms in certain contexts, belong in the dictionary. Uncle G 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Your Taint just Got Bigger" - I have expanded the taint article adding many facts and links. I think it now more than surpasses a dictonary def. I have also contacted the Kinsey Institute of I.U. and expect to recive more taint related material, mostly in relation to taint related fetish.--Cenestrad 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Like the expansion of the article. Still think we need to disambig between this, the "old fashioned" usage, the term "tainted data" in programming, and maybe a link to Tainted Love, too. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • People don't type in "taint" when they're looking for tainted love, so it wouldn't make a dab page... Thanks/wangi 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • like the added material, hopefully it will continue to grow. I was talking with my grandmother( a ninety-plus year old political activist who encouraged me to get my nose pierced) about the irony of this article and its discussion page being longer than the actual article, and she told me about a phrase I had never heard "The smell of his taint". Apparently her parents used to use it to refer to scotsmen and black people(apparently her parents were very racist even though my grand mother is NOT at all). They would talk about the smell of a certain scotsmans taint(they were both full blooded irish) being lifted after he carried their daughter Ima home from an accident which probably saved Ima's life. My grandmother didnt know weather this is an irish term, a local term or one just my great grand parent used, but I thought someone here might. I also thought it would be interesting to know if this was in fact a play on the two different meanings of the words, as this might offer some info into the amount of time the latter difintion has been around.Pickelbarrel 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, if taint really can be expanded as a body part slang term, should a dab be made here and a new article called taint (slang) be created? Im still thinking redirect and expanding the perineum article. Main concern with doing something other than a redirect would set a precendent for the creation and survival of article like fleshy fun bridge or chin rest. Youngamerican 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. The term Taint is well known and widely used giving it cultural relevance. The term Perineum should be concerned with gross anatomy not sexual fetish, comedy routines or homosexual slang. The terms like fleshy fun bridge or chin rest could not be expanded upon beyond a dict. def. I would suggest you look at the article for both choad and asshole.--Cenestrad 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. That's Wiktionary's job, and it is doing it. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why does the catagory slang exist? I don't think you can reasonably argue that what I wrote is a dict. def or that it belongs on the perineum page. Again I suggest that you take a look at asshole and it's AFD page and the reason it was kept. Also look at choad and pussy. Again these are anatomical terms that but the context of these articles don't belong on the coresponding anatomical page.--Cenestrad 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Choad has yet to come to AFD. Chode (AfD discussion) came to AFD and was deleted. Category:Slang is mis-used by editors who want to create a dictionary in the encyclopaedia. It is supposed to be for articles about slang, such as London slang, Medical slang, Sexual slang, and so forth, but editors who want to create a dictionary in the wrong project do from time to time mis-use it as if it were the same as wikt:Category:English slang (which is a category in the dictionary, note, into which many of the articles in wikt:Category:Slang should eventually be migrated) and were a category for dictionary articles on slang words. Uncle G 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect to Perineum. otherwise keep. i hate this stupid slang term. but alas. Kingturtle 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, If my push for redirect fails, I would favor a all-out keep over a dab or a delete. Youngamerican 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is now an encyclopedia article about a slang term, not just a definition of one. Possibly move to taint (term) and disambiguate. Kappa 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Much of the article, such as the parts about shaving and piercing, is about perinaea. Uncle G 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • [[[question]]] for all those that have been wikipedia is not a dictionaring this term, I would like to ask them to go to the satanic entry and tell me if that is not JUST A DEFINTION, I am still learning about wikipedia. The article does NOT have a snub listing next to it, and I cant tell why it is allowed to stay. I put the question on the discussion page but have not gotten a response. I have been going over the rules since wangi sent them to me, but have yet to find a reason why this has seemingly slipped through the cracks. I dont want to put it up for deletion though if it IS legitimate.Pickelbarrel 18:12, 8 January 2006 (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.