Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sexual slang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual slang was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

This page is making our encyclopedia look like a respository of silliness. Andy5 00:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's vulgar and a bit silly, perhaps, but it is informative. Spectatrix 00:29, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete except that it is a list about sex. Hyacinth 00:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. David Remahl 00:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - our pages on sex are remarkably popular. Secretlondon 01:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and Keep: The first paragraph is encyclopedic. It explains what sexual slang is and how it functions. That's fine. The rest of it, though, is a Wiktionary Blue. A catalog of dirty words (where people can go to learn more of them in a Roget's Blue) just isn't encyclopedic. Meaning no offense, but I think it's just a question of dictionaries/thesauruses/encyclopedias. Geogre 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--the list could be split off into "list of sexual slang terms" and perhaps sent to Wiktionary", but no worse than any other list, really. Really, the most offensive thing in that article is comparing George Carlin with Andrew Dice Clay. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I meant to indicate in my "keep" vote above, people only want to delete this list, rather than edit it, because it is about sex. WORSE: A list about sex, and some wikifolks oppose both types of content. Please edit content (or lackthereof) that you have an objection to so that it no longer causes the objection, please do not simply delete articles. For instance, much of "Sexual slang" was duplicated more appropriately on List of sexual slurs. Hyacinth 02:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--it would be better if this page wasn't deleted. Cclarke 03:32, July 12 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it all here. It's an encyclopedic topic and would be significantly less so without any of the details. Jamesday 03:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. List of sexual slurs at least provides some context for the words listed. Also, at least a few listings are factually incorrect. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. ("Meat curtains"...tee hee hee...) Postdlf 06:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The other problem with this article is that it's almost impossible to verify that some of the terms have actually been used, and if the context in which they were used is important enough to merit their inclusion. If the person who added one of the terms to the list invented it himself and its only use was with with three of his friends, how would we ever know? Andy5 07:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Because people trained in sexology and sexual health work (like me) are here to verify as much as we can. Not everyone in the world works in an office, you know. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really wish there was more context, when and where these are used. A fair number of these are probably crudely witty but short-lived adolescent inventions unknown to any significant number of people. Everyking 10:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like the above comment says, if we addedd origin of the slang word and in which situations it is used, this would be encyclopedic indeed. Just wanting to delete it 'because other encyclopedias do not have this kind of article' is silly, that's what makes Wikipedia great, that you can find well written articles that won't find in other ones. Wanting to delete it just because it talks about sex is utterly closed minded, I think the disclaimer is enough. xDCDx 11:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, but legit. And, there are some real guffaws to be had! - Lucky 6.9 18:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have you looked at our other articles? Among many other things, we are a repository for silliness. Snowspinner 20:46, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exploding Boy 09:35, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or keep it but delete most of the content. The problem isn't that it's silly; it's that its a list, not an article. Were there a couple good case studies in there of how terms like "beating the bishop" or "snatch" make it into the language, I'd say keep it. The list is better handled with external links. Also, should be titled "Sexual slang (English)". Bacchiad 05:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's both useful information (haven't you ever looked up a "bad word" in a dictionary?) and (potentially) "encyclopedic" in nature. As I see it, the only real reason someone would want to delete it is that they find it offensive. But that's what the WARNING at the top of the page is for. If someone with delicate sensibilities doesn't have the self control to stop reading there, that's no reason to prevent others from seeing it. - dcljr 06:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only reason anyone would have to delete this is that it is slightly vulgar and offensive. But that's why we have the Warning at the top of the page. If other people don't like it, they don't have to read it.--Ty Hal 18:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No censorship on Wikipedia. We have plenty of other lists. Andy Mabbett 22:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it looks to me like it could use some formatting, like make bulleted lists and alphabetize the terms, and verification. Maybe pop them into Google or something? ...no, I ain't volunteering. ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 22:32, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this ain't paper. Bbpen 07:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's real-world info, and besides, it's fun. :) -- Stevietheman 03:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand more about the origin of some of these terms, where, when and why they are used, and much more about the history of sexual slang.--Samuel Wantman 08:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's legitimate and somewhat interesting information. There is no need for us to censor content especially when we claim to document a great deal of human knowledge and culture. It's culture. Keep it. -SocratesJedi 19:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.