The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by author, who said "I just need a day to get it all together", but has not edited the article for over 10 days. It seems to me just another expression of emphatic agreement, like "Too right!" or "You can say that again!"; I have done some searching, but I can't see any basis for an article which is more than a one-line dicdef. It is already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep. JuJube, "good faith goes out the window" when I don't have time to finish what I started? How is this article, if I, or anyone else, takes the time to expand it any different than Shuckin' and jivin'? I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So why is it neccesarily incumbent that I expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted? If I take a month to expand the article, does that make the knowledge which would be conveyed in the article less credible than if I expand it in a week? If I work at a slower pace, does that make me a bad faith editor? Personally, I don't think so. I find the comments above somewhat personal and disrespectful. I understand the concerns about the article. I stubbed it, and added the example of Shuckin' and jivin' to the talk page to provide an example of where I want to take this. If someone would like to help me do this, I would appreciate it. However, simply trying to delete a valid contribution to the encyclopedia because the author is too busy to get the research done seems a little extreme. Avayafone (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]