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 as valid diasambiguation page. Eluchil404 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nookie[edit]

Nookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Page is actually a disambig page. I tried to clean up the article to make the disambiguation more prominent (further cleanup may be needed). If this page ends up being deleted, Nookie (song) should be redirected/moved here. Tinlinkin 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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- ) 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - may need more references?? It contains NO references. How then can it be verified when there is nothing to verify? I will take your assertion of it not violating anything else with equal (non-)seriousness. CyberAnth 10:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - it now reads like more standardized disambig page. Redundancies also removed. SkierRMH 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - article is fine as a disambig page. Johntex\^talk 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Another stupid nomination from CyberAnth. How will people find Nookie Bear witnout this disambig page? Jooler 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, lets not start that. Keep to the subject at hand; any "stupidity" or otherwise can be dealt with at WP:ANI, which it currently is. For that matter, speedy keep as a disambig. page which is exempt from WP:V in this case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dicdef usage guide = delete. Wiktionary is thataway ----> Guy (Help!) 13:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A fine disambiguation page. Akihabara 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. It's a disambig page, and I'm calling WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Delete. It's been reformatted, looks more like a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever I think of this block of nominations, I don't think this one's wirth keeping even as a disambig page. It appears there is only one article on Wiki other than this with 'Nookie' in the title and that is Nookie (song). A redirect will do. Also, its new content is absurd: "In American English, the slang word 'fuck' is used instead". Yeah, as a Brit I confirm that I always use the word 'nookie' where Americans would use 'fuck'. Dicdef entries are not saved by listing all known uses of the word- it must have some relevant social context to justify an article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nookie Bear Jooler 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SNOW (although, I'd like to go on record saying that I don't think this was a bad faith nom. There is surprisingly little content, and it does appear like a dictdef, although it clearly is not.) Wavy G 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I doubt WP:WINAD is meant to eliminate disambig pages?-- danntm ^T _C 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a rather rambling and disjointed disambig. I have shortened the top entry to match the Wiktionary entry. Any elaboration on that needs to be sourced. Most of the other entries were not sourced here or in the articles they link to, and I have requested citations for them. Just because it's a disambig does not mean that WP:V gets thrown out the window. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well said. In its current state, it stops being a disambig page, and becomes a sort of soft-redirect with some trivia. I don't think this sort of thing belongs here.... --Dennisthe2 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without all the pop culture mambo-jumbo, there is the dicdef, a song title, a puppet and a company name. The page now has simply those things. (I've also removed an entry for a possibly non-notable artist/deejay in the process, but is linked from other pages.) Those who did not see past the dicdef have not analyzed the content for what it is properly. Tinlinkin 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Looking at it again, the page is not a disambig page. I have removed the disambig tag. This page is nothing but a dicdef with trivia. -- Donald Albury 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, never mind, its a disambig. At least now it's lost that leering tone. -- Donald Albury 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • How does it look now? Tinlinkin 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the sports equip company be mentioned if not notable enough for own article? Seems like advertising... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I am not sure why this is even nominated. Wikipediarules2221 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Because it looked like this when it was nominated. -- Donald Albury 23:22, 10 January 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.