Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore sexual slang terminology (3rd nomination)

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 First AfD result was "move to Wiktionary", and should have been implemented at that time. The article is 100% unreferenced violating WP:V, and also violates WP:NOT#DICT. Therefore I close this 3rd AfD with Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore sexual slang terminology

This is a non-encyclopaedic, unverified list of rude words - the online equivalent of children underlining rude words in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article doesn't belong here.

This article was nominated for deletion previously at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Singapore_sexual_slang B1atv 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's another, more recent AfD than that one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Singapore_sexual_slang. Deor 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic, unreferenced, unverifiable, unmaintainable list of terms. Last AfD was "ambiguous", which I take to mean "no consensus". The keep opinions in the last discussion were shaky at best, in my opinion. If the list could be expanded upon, it's had over two years to do so, and I don't see any useful improvement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. —Huaiwei 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a glossary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia does contain glossaries. Nice trick there, pointing to one policy and calling it something else. DHowell 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The last AFD was, from my point of view, quite poorly done, with numerous comments seemingly drawn directly from WP:AADD. Best option would be to delete, and transwiki the material to Wiktionary. ~Cr∞nium 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a patent nonsense and unencyclopedic article. Keb25 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia does indeed contain glossaries (see List of glossaries and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), and this one is referenced, and has an encyclopedic introduction to give it context. WP:NOT#DICT was meant to prevent articles from being nothing more than dictionary definitions, etymologies, and/or usage guides. But a list of terms relating to a specific topic is indeed encyclopedic. DHowell 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hersfold. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What part of ENCYCLOPEDIA don't you people understand??? Burntsauce 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the vote for deletion here just shows how bad things have gotten here. This article is 2 years old, was written by someone who appears to be a strong contributor, and has every look of being verifiable, and useful, but not referenced well. This could be very useful for people needing wiki, and could be trimmed to be encyclopaediac.JJJ999 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL. Your argument that because it was written long ago by someone who is a "strong contributor" also falls flat on its face. I probably contribute more in a month than this person has in his or her entire time on Wikipedia but that is neither here nor there. Burntsauce 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of that observation is that it is not a hoax. It is an encyclopaedic in my opinion to have an article on different sections of languages, if someone had an article on "consonants" or "Chinese Verbs" I doubt anyone would care, the fact that it is rude words should not be decisive, I'd rather it be cleaned up and kept. By all means assert your view, just don't assume I'm going to agree.JJJ999 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of glossaries are here; linguistic differences are notable; and WP is not censored. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, IMO. Where else but wikipedia can someone find an exhaustive list of singlish slang (easily)? Great article. Keeper | 76 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.