Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (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: WP:SNOW --Scott Davis Talk 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wanker

Wanker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
RATIONALE FOR DELETION:
  • Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion
    • Votes appear primarily based on whether people were amused by the article or not. This violates WP:N#Notability is not subjective.
    • The admin decided "Keep" but did not follow WP:N: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."
      • NOTE: Wanker has only one non-trivial published work cited about "Wanker". (No blame to the admin - no one even mentioned this omission in the prior Afd discussion).
  • Is about a neologism (WP:NEO), a slang term, and fails notability (WP:N)
    • WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia.
    • Per WP:NEO, this is so "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", such as listed in the article's sections Wanker#Usage and social acceptability and Wanker#Wanker in popular culture.
    • Per the section "Reliable sources for neologism", To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains only one reference about the term. It also contains a trivia reference from the 1990 U.S. Census stating, "'Wanker' is the 53,492nd most common surname in the United States".
  • Mergability
    • Any pertinent cited information in the article is best merged into Masturbation where Wanker may be described as one of many colloquialisms for a person who engages in the act.
CyberAnth 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Non-improvability
    • Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006.
      • Nothing regarding its above violations have changed, even after surviving its prior Afd.
        • Reliable sources are not currently in existence to justify Wanker's claims beyond a Wiktionary entry. WP's standard is verifiability, not truth.
CyberAnth 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.86.77 (talk • contribs) 194.176.86.77
  • Keep incorrect rationale use of WP:NEO.--Jersey Devil 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The word has been in use since at least 1950 (source: OED) so it's hardly a neologism. The current article has problems but a verifiable article can certainly be written so this is by no means a rationale for deletion. --Cherry blossom tree 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep footnotes would be desirable, but there is a reference section, and the term is well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Soft redirect to Wikitionary Certainly not a neologism, but fails WP:DICDEF. (WP:DICDEF was the main argument for deletion in the first afd). The article content is in very bad shape and is not encyclopedic in its current form. Recommend soft redirect to Wikitionary. At minimum, please let's remove the "popular references"/trivia sections altogether which as is so often the case, are out of control and a net negative - and well, a crap magnet in themselves in this such a case. I absolutely agree that the consensus reached in the previous afd was inadequate - in terms of taking the discussion seriously in policy terms. Bwithh 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • note this rational for WP:NEO has shown up in a few recent sexual-topic AfD debates, so be wary. Terms widely used in publication, or defined in third-party works are not neologisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC). Wintermut3 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Masturbation It's just the British term for someone who masturbates, no reason for it to have it's own article. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It absolutely isn't just the British term for someone who masturbates - the word is almost never used in that context. To merge with masturbation would be irrational and misleading. --Cherry blossom tree 11:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as another ...let's be charitable and say misunderstanding of WP:NEO. Otto4711 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NEO does not apply, it is notable, and being a slang term is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect I don't care if it goes to masturbation or if it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary's wanker page. It's a valid search term, but not really a valid article topic as it can easily be discussed within masturbation. Heck, "Wanker" was also the b-side of The Darkness's "One Way Ticket" single, so turn it into a disambig page if you like. <shrug> Any of these options would be suitable, but an article really isn't appropriate at this time. GassyGuy 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - recommend nominator read WP:POINT. Catchpole 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the nominator appears to be on a quest of some sort to eliminate earthy Anglo-Saxon terms relating to sex from Wikipedia, always using the justification WP:NEO ("recently coined" words that do not "appear in dictionaries") although these are established slang terms or colloquialisms. This nom is at least better formulated, but see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act), and yet others. I am unsurprised that other editors are bringing up WP:POINT. --Dhartung
  • Keep, this is one of the most used insults in the UK. The article is more than a dicdef. I recommend the nominator read WP:NEO. I also recommend this AfD be ended now because of WP:SNOW. Mallanox 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Make personal attacks against me as you will. However, the deepest problem with the article is its lack of established notability: "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention Wanker as a colloquialism only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Wanker "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Right now it has only one which does not equal "mulitple". Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. Notability_is_not_subjective. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's "merely mentioned" in the dictionary. This nomination is pushing the envelope of WP:POINT. Mallanox 08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • POV Pushing by whom, the authors or the AfD nominator? Wanker as an offensive colloquial term for "masturbator" indeed needs to be mentioned as such in masturbation, nothing more, unless and only unless notability for wanker as a term worthy of an article as such is verified as "the subject of [not merely mentioned in] multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" (bracketed verbiage added for clarity). CyberAnth 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Firstly, wanker is slang, it is not colloquial. Secondly it means more than simply "one who masturbates". If I called someone a wanker it means I consider them to be irritating not because I think they go home and masturbate. Again, wanker is in the dictionary, it is the subject of a definition of its meaning. Mallanox 09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • So if you can establish that Wanker is notable because as a term "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" with "subject of" not equating with merely mentioned in articles - then fine. Otherwise, Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, far from a neologism, so all arguments based on WP:NEO are futile. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is not a neologism - check the dictionary. Article needs to improve its refs, but they are certainly out there. I don't understand why this one keeps popping up. Chovain 09:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely whether an article meets notability standards is based on the inherent qualities of the subject, rather than the quality of the article, as long as the article makes these clear. Do you mean verifiability? --Cherry blossom tree 11:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Wiktionary. The article is a long dicdef. Mention it in the Masturbation article as a synonym. Edison 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article masturbation, as per the insult Jerkoff ~ IICATSII punch the keys 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a neologism, the premise being false the rest doesn't follow. Akihabara 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is about the term wanker, not about "wanking," so redirect to masturbation is not appropriate (much as a redirect of fuck to sexual intercourse is not called for). The word is not a neologism, but has been in common currency for quite a long time. Multiple published references support both the word's sociolinguistic notability and much of the content of the article. The article does need to be trimmed to remove original research and/or uncited claims concerning usage within specific circles. Nick Graves 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nomination for deletion is ridiculous. Neoligism claim is plainly wrong. I'm confused by the notability claim. Surely many Wikipedia pages would fail if this standard were held up as compulsory for inclusion. The size of Wales for example. Jooler 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to masturbation. -- The Anome 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and far from being a neologism. A few more references and some cleanup would be nice, but there are several tags for requesting that. Prolog 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, too much information to consider Transwikiing, and appears well-researched; notability should be obvious to just about anyone (and I believe the current article documents this sufficiently), and it isn't a neologism unless you think words that originate in 1945 (according to Random House Unabridged) are still "new." Tarinth 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepNot a neologism - dated to the 1940s and at least 1972. See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep Not a neologism, it's a well established slang term. Commonly used in popular culture although primarily in British English. --Nick Y. 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, this term is a dominant insult in most, if not all, of Australia. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not appopriate for a redirect. The term may have come from a slang term for masturbation but it's used in much wider contexts now. The article is not a mere 'dictionary definition', although I think it has a lot of scope for improvement. That's what should be done: improve the article, don't delete it. Meanwhile, editors from countries where the term isn't in use should look upon it as a chance to be more informed about the world. I know our articles about non-UK topics help inform me. Sam Blacketer 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Keep well established slang term. DXRAW 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The word has nuances of meaning that go beyond a dicdef. It also shows up in numerous works of fiction, one of which was on my niece's Grade 12 syllabus last year (thank you Martin Amis). I don't even think it's slang any more. I'm trying not to assume bad faith in regard to non-US language or censorship issues, but this is clearly notable. And by God: if you're going to redirect "wanker" to "masturbate", let's just go ahead and redirect asshole to rectum and creep to Richard M. Nixon. --Charlene 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Did the people suggesting this should RDR to masturbation actually read it? The content has nothing to do with it. What is the problem with only having one source? One is more than none, and its hardly surprising, for a slang regional word. pfctdayelise (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Surprised to find this even listed for deletion. The only reason seems to be to remove profanity. But WP:NOT#CENSOR and if this is removed, we may as well say goodbye to the likes of fuck and cunt. I would ask people to look at other articles the user who nominated this for deletion wants removed. Gretnagod 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a well known slang term.-- danntm T C 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known British slang. Realkyhick 07:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: This is a commonly used term in Australia, as well as Britain and New Zealand. Given this, frankly, only an American would consider the term a neologism. Given this, to delete the article would be to pander to an American cultural Point of View. I would also like to add that an article needing improvement (e.g. more sources, etc.) in spite of very common usage and clear potential for improvement should not be deleted. I would further add that it is often not used in its literal sense (i.e. often someone is called a 'wanker' even if they do not regularly engage in masturbation), and thus anyone who thinks that merging the article with masturbation is... for lack of a better term... a wanker. - AmishThrasher 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Where to start? 1) Inadequacy of previous AfD - the result of the AfD was overwhelmingly for keep, and appears to have been so for non-trivial reasons - virtually none of those who voted keep appear to have done so "based on whether people were amused by the article or not", as anyone actually reading that AfD should be able to clearly see. 2) Neologism, including the bit about "non-trivial sources about rather than using the word" - I'd regard the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang as such a source. It cites the term Wanker as having been used since at least 1950 in its listing of the word. 3) Mergability - the popular usage of this word per se, as opposed to its usage as a term meaning masturbation, is enough for it to survive as a separate article. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Can we please end CyberAnth's campaign to Bowdlerize Wikipedia.
  • Strong keep a very notable term. --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My "campaign" is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies. It is possible it could be made such, but it is not now.
Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough.
I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.
CyberAnth 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In what way was my comment attacking you? --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Given your choice of articles to nominate for deletion, the claim claim that the nomination " is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies" is clearly disingenuous and I urge you to consider WP:POINT before making any similar requests for deletion. This is advice and not a personal attack. This nomination should probably be put on WP:LAME Jooler 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough. CyberAnth 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you've said that a dozen times. I think the policy needs review. But thepoint is that in reality that fact was NOT your motivation. Jooler 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.
  • Keep. I've just added a reference to a reputable article dedicated to the word and its etymology. I could probably dig up some more if necessary. The term is clearly notable and is certainly not a neologism. —Psychonaut 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - do you really consider the Maven's Word of the Day reference you added to be anything more than trivial? I suppose now we can go through the entire archive of Maven's Word of the Day and start creating articles about them all. CyberAnth 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to speedy keep per WP:SNOW - 'nuff said? Tarinth 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:N#Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely not a neologism by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is chock full of Original Research, as I noted in my initial nomination. But I just noticed another very glaring example of it: The photo and its caption. The one non-trivial source in the article does not describe the gesture. Neither do any of the trivial sources. CyberAnth 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • CyberAnth - I and probably every single person over the age of 5 in Britain, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and a host of other country can firmly attest that the image is a fair representation of the wanker sign. Are you seriously suggesting that despite 200 million odd people knowing and recognising this gesture that the image should be deleted because it is not verifiable from a reference book? That is sheer madness and red-tape bureaucracy against common sense. Jooler 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then almost every article in Wikipedia is chock full of original research. --Cherry blossom tree 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. For two examples, consider our articles about Frederick Douglass and Cardinals. We add photos of these subjects because reliable sources have already published photos of them. In contrast, no source in Wanker either describes or depicts the gesture. Including the gesture and a photo of it is thus Original Research. CyberAnth 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the image, rather the assertion that since not every fact in the article is currently cited it should be deleted. --Cherry blossom tree 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"...not every fact"?? You're kidding, right? But sure, let's talk facts: The sole non-trivial source, would support an article the length of stub a dictionary definition. But one such source is not enough, since Wanker must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources to be included in Wikipedia. The entire sections "Usage and social acceptability" and "Wanker in popular culture" in the article, about 85% of the article, are completely unreferenced. Perhaps an example of what a well-sourced article free of OR looks like will be helpful, and here is one. CyberAnth 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is the majority of articles on Wikipedia are in the same state. I just hit special:random five times and found four articles without a source between them and one with a few external links. This is not a situation to be encouraged but the correct solution is not to delete these articles unless none of the information is verifiable. (Verifiable is different to currently cited.) You have failed to persuade people that this is the case and have even acknowledged that it isn't yourself.--Cherry blossom tree 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So because Johnny down the road is bad Timmy gets to be bad too?

Verifiability does not come via cited references?? You must be just kidding me again.

Do I need to conduct OR to verify an article's OR? Is that how articles are "verifiable" in your book?

Everything in Wanker beyond a dictionary definition in its sources is Original Research.

For example, I am going to need to call User:Reinoutr on his/her apparent reference-padding regarding his/her insertion on January 3, 2006, of Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658. Following is the entire use of wanker in the book:

A number of the formulae ["you wanker" and "fuck off, wanker" (from page 205)] use as a form of address the word wanker. Literally, the word wanker in New Zealand English denotes a male who masturbates. But it is also used as a general term of abuse among New Zealand males. Masturbation is popularly regarded as a sign of sexual inadequacy. Therefore a wanker is one is sexually inadequate (page 206).

Source here.

A mere dictionary definition contained in a book, used as padding in an article to make it appear as a cover for OR. Nice.

WINAD, and that is what Wiktionary is for.[1]

CyberAnth 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Johnny and Timmy analogy is a straw man. I specifically stated that the situation was not to be encouraged and explained how the it should be remedied. --Cherry blossom tree 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. Nothing substantive regarding references has changed in this article, even after it survived its prior Afd. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet policy standards? CyberAnth 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as it takes. I don't see the fact that an article is not fully referenced now as a reason to delete it if I think it could be referenced after some work has been put in. See m:eventualism. --Cherry blossom tree 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in little danger of missing the publishing deadline. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep part of 50's song72.184.201.3 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wooo.. wait a second. I resent the accusation above by CyberAnth. The refs I supplied are certainly not refs for all the information in the article, but I NEVER claimed they were. They back up some of the things and prove that there are descriptions of the word in books dealing with English language and swearing. That's all they prove and that's all they are for. No need to "call" me on my "reference-padding", thank you very much. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the reference adds nothing except a dictionary definition and two quotes showing usage, as a dictionary would contain. CyberAnth
  • keep Silly Americans. Artw 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment about WP:WINAD - I created a version of Wanker supported only by the references on the page and removed all of the OR that the page represents. As you can see, what is left is a dictionary entry. CyberAnth 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment about real encyclopedias - they are full of "stub" entries. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you picked up one of those old fashioned things?  ;-) Silensor 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    But this is not a stub but an article of OR whose references support only a dictionary definition. CyberAnth 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, one of the few instances where I believe that WP:SNOW actually applies. Silensor 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities
From Online Etymology Dictionary:
1940s, "masturbator," British slang, from wank "to masturbate," of unknown origin. General sense of "contemptible person" is attested from 1972. Cf. sense evolution of jerk (n.).
It's obvious that this isn't a neologism by any stretch of the imagination. As for redirecting to Masturbation, that's blatantly misleading. In modern usage, "You are a wanker" does not strictly mean "You are a regular masturbator". That's exactly why this article needs more than a dictionary definition, to make it clear what the expression actually means nowadays, and show examples of how it's used nowadays. Quack 688 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More reference-padding

Above I demonstrated by evidence that the reference in the article, Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658, verified nothing in the article except a dictionary definition.

I again have uncovered what appears to be more reference-padding.

The following is included as a reference in this article:

Anthony McEnery and Tony McEnery, 2005, Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415258375.

Just as with the book, I searched its entire digitized contents for the term Wanker.

The word appears once in the book, on page 36, within a table that categorizes British "swear" words from "Very mild" to "Very strong". There under the "Moderate" section we find the word Wanker in its sole entry in the book.

The mention was so minor that Wanker does not appear in the book's Index on page 275, where it would appear otherwise between "VALA" and "warrants". In contrast, the word fuck is discussed in some depth in the book, and appears in its Index as such, on 40 of the book's pages.

Page 36 of the book, other pages, as well as the book's entire index can be viewed at here.

The reference verifies nothing in the article beyond what a dictionary does.

CyberAnth 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still more reference padding

In Wanker, the sole pertinent reference cited in specifically the reference section is:

Cameron, Deborah "Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis among American College Students", in American Speech Vol. 67, No. 4 p372.

In the entire journal article, the word wanker appears only once, indicating nothing more than the fact that college students in the researcher's study group used the word wanker as slang for masturbation. Here is the exact sentence:

Apart from the two fellatio-related terms above, there are two references to anal sex, rectum wrecker and anal intruder; and one to masturbation, wanker.

This is the full extent of the coverage of wanker in the reference. No further discussion or mention is made.

Wanker claims,

Wanker...is also a slang term for penis used by American college students. This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation.[1]

Obviously, based on the cited source, the claim that wanker is a term for penis is not verifiable, patently false. This speaks nothing of the ludicrous Synthesis/OR claim that follows, "This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation."

The specfic page entry for page 272 of the journal article is at here. The entire journal article is here. You need JSTOR access.

In conclusion, the journal article referenced in the article provides nothing but a dictionary definition for wanker while saying college students sometimes use it.

CyberAnth 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The stated fact is absolutely verifiable from the source. Wanker is discussed in the context fo slang terms for penis. The article also connects the 'sexuality' category to an earlier discussion of 'tool' related terms, which is where the comment comes from. --Cherry blossom tree 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - See User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims CyberAnth 09:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If other non-American editors feel this is a common slang term in their respective environs, who am I to disagree? --MatthewUND(talk) 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep despite very impressive research and justification by nominator. Certainly not a neologism, and in my opinion the nominator's definition of "notability" and "reliable sources" is a little rigid (oo-er!). I have experienced a similar situation with "Bogan", a very widely used term in Australia and very difficult to reference from "academic" sources... although there's an interesting story about the loss of impact of the term from the Australian National University here relating to a court case. Sorry CyberAnth, you've done an amazing amount of work but I think this article is salvageable without too much difficulty. --Canley 09:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I just want to mention here that the nominator did NOT nominate this article after extensive research. It was listed for AfD based on "Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion", "WP:NEO" and "mergability" [2]. Only when after two days almost everybody disagreed with these arguments, the nominator did research on the article and switched to the arguments of "WP:WINAD", "WP:V" and "WP:OR". [3]. On the brink of not assuming good faith, that makes it appear the actual deletion of this article is more important to the nominator than the actual reasons why it should be deleted (see also this statement by the nominator, regarding a previous AfD: [4]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please good nomination but really this term is so notable erasing this would be a bad idea Yuckfoo 10:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just added a reference attesting to it's more modern broader usage. Mallanox 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, are you seriously suggesting that "wanker" is a neologism? You wanker. Lankiveil 10:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. Nice example. Can we use it in the article? :-p Quack 688 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if we're going to delete Wanker on the grounds of WP:NEO ... then Nigger should go next.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would also point out that over 150 pages link here. Ok, a good chunk of them are talk pages but a good chunk of them aren't. Deleting will leave a lot of redlinks. Mallanox 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - popular, notable term. Needs better referencing, but that is not an AfD worhy issue. Johntex\talk 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term in widespread and common use. Notability goes well beyond merely being a synonim for a masturbator. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extremely well known in New Zealand. The illustration is correct - just one eg. it was recently featured in advertising a chocolate milk shake drink. There are tone issues and excessive pop culture references, but these don't justify a delete. Seems to be making WP:Point Mostlyharmless 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think users of British Sign Language might be able to find one or two references for the gesture. Jooler 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a valuable part of the English language. Atlantis Hawk 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lankiveil. Qwghlm 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Notable, referenced, commonly used term (not a neologism). No reason for deletion. Atom 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regarding referencing, I've added one ref, I'm sure a Google Books search would yield many more. Oldelpaso 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added another reference, an entire article about the word being banned from football shirts, "Footie team 'W*nker' strip ban", from the UK's best-selling newspaper [5] -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - As all of Great Britain says: this AfD needs to wanker off. ju66l3r 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Clearly a notable term, well sourced, etc. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\talk 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article is excellent especially for non-native English speakers. The wiktionary entry only doesn't help these people much. So keeping this article is more important than to care for the feelings of a fundamentalist Christian that tries to AfD articles with sexual content by using false pretends.

St blac 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep yet another tiresome an pointless nom by a serial offender. Albatross2147 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Besides being a bad-faith nomination by a person who seems to be in process of trying to delete all article with any trace of sexual content, it just happens that today, I got the latest emailing from the World Wide Words site, which contains a discussion of wanker as "Most Useful Import from British English to American English: - http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/01/words-of-year-2006.html User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable term which is not a neologism despite nominator's own persistance to the contrary. Meets all standards for verifiability and thus should be kept. bbx 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close AfD?

It appears to me that a consensus has been reached... Mostlyharmless 09:24, 7 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.