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 Delete as already transwikied - per the refutations to the keep advocates, this is not an abuse of the AfD system.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Lists_of_words. There is no encyclopedic value in the article, only dictionary value. The article is already transwikified in wiktionary. By the way, the term "glossary" is misleading. I undesrtand "Glossary of golf", glossary of graph theory, i.e., a lgossary for a certain sicispline, but "glossary of words used to denote coitus" is a word trick to make the title look good. Mukadderat 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:WINAD, lists of words and definitions are not encyclopedic. Indeed, as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, "Article about "Words of <foo>" may be okay. "List of words of <foo>" to Wiktionary.". We have an article about sexual slurs, but the list is not appropriate here. Common practice is to move these to Wiktionary, link them from the main Wikipedia aticle, and delete the wikipedia lists. So, delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the arguments for keeping on the list of words page. I see plenty of value in lists of this type. I also note this article has repeatedly survived AfD (this has got to be the 3rd or 4th nom) including the previous round in July by the same nominator. --JJay 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see lots of value in this list, too. That's why it has been transwikied to Wiktionary where I will myself clean it up. But valuable is not the same thing as encyclopedic. Could you give a reason for why it is encyclopedic? Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's a subject for serious scholarship as demonstrated by some of the references. It is also actively edited here, unlike the wiktionary version, which dates from three months ago and hasn't seen any edits since (and no cleaning from you). This is an encyclopedia article that has steadily improved over the last 8 months, not a dictionary entry. --JJay 18:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What has changed since last July? There was no concensus then, there's no concensus now. This fully sourced list complies with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. No reason to delete. --Daniel Olsen 01:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, could I ask you to provide a rational for why this is encyclopedic? It was transwikied a few days ago. I realize there wasn't found to have been consensus a last time around, but one of the principles of AfD and deletion in general is that it is inconsistent. It's inevitable. Can you give a reason for why there shouldn't be such consensus now? Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". WP:V and WP:NPOV are irrelevant, since they refer to encyclopedia articles. This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a slang, jargon or usage guide, plus this is a gathering place for the trivial, uncited, sophomoric and ridiculous. Consensus can change. Those which are genuinely verifiable should be in Wiktionary. Oh, and the definition of sexual slur appears to be very elastic in this list as well (slur is in any case subjective). Guy 08:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is already transwikified in wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ajvol 12:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful list, meets all criteria. As I readWikipedia:Deletion_policy/Lists_of_words, it does not dictate a delete. Carlossuarez46 06:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious what part of the conclusion leads you to think that. Note that the article has no introductory section that could be merged to an article about the words themselves (as the policy suggests) and that we already have an extesive article at sexual slur. The necessary specifications for deletion seem satisfied. Dmcdevit·t 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entirely in keeping with the purpose of an encyclopaedia, and no reason at all to transwiki. If there was a separate wiki for sexual slang terms, then there might be a reason to move it there, but the whole concept of Wikipedia (behind its central purpose of gathering knowledge to make it available to the world) is to enable access to related information, and a dictionary does not provide that cross-reference facility. Ordinarily wikilinks would provide a mechanism to move from one related term to another. However, in the case where there are a set of terms related through a central theme, but there is not enough to say about each one individually in its own article, then it seems to be a perfectly valid and useful thing to do to gather the information in a glossary which can be referenced from articles that do have enough to justify their existence, but which would be cluttered by a list. It also means that those articles can all point to a single place, rather than having the information dispersed or duplicated.

This seems an entirely specious AfD listing, and harmful to Wikipedia, at that. This is another example of the arrogance and inanity that has driven me away from being a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you better contribute rather than fight. As I see, of your last 500 edits 95% are reversals and deletions. Either you are a warrior, then do what you are doing and don't whine. If you are not, just relax and write some good texts for a change sometimes, e.g, by Mondays. `'mikkanarxi 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Information is not lost. There is no article here. Neither it is a navigational tool. Its place is in another wikiproject, what's the fuss about it? `'mikkanarxi 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/comment/Delete here/Rename at Wiktionary - Please see discussion of glossaries as a group, at Talk:List of glossaries. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a glossary. The title is a misleading trick, aimed at giving this article a gist of validity. This article is a dictionary. "Sexual slurs" is not a domain of knowledge or industry, such as chemistry or golf, where the glossary is a necessary replacement of a bunch of small article with definitions of the terminology necessary for reading articles in specialized subjects. `'mikkanarxi 04:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries, based on which I'm changing my stance to endorsing this article be renamed to List of sexual slurs at Wiktionary, and deleted from here. --Quiddity 06:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, who cares what it is, this site is for getting info, and who cares what form it is.

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.