This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 17:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also note the name disambiguation at Langer/Temp.

This article was VfDed (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Langer), the result being to move it to Wiktionary. This VfD is to confirm what I take to be the intentions of those voting in the first VfD — to move it by deleting it from Wikipedia and placing it in Wiktionary. There's little if anything here that's encyclopædic; a slang term from a small locality isn't a suitable article subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (just to make sure that things are completely clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mel Etitis. Hamster Sandwich 10:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per criteria: "Any article that has been discussed at Votes for Deletion, where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." --DNicholls 10:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as per DNicholls. Capitalistroadster 11:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even being generous and applying such criteria retrospectively without time limit, the speedy criterion doesn't apply; The article at Wiktionary bears no resemblance to the article under discussion, and no version in that article's history even remotely resembles the current Wikipedia article Langer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because it's formatted in wiktionary house style. It's still a dicdef. Dunc|☺ 20:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You clearly didn't actually read the history of the Wiktionary article. The very first version of that article, with the prominent comment "Transwiki of page :en:Langer", is almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia article. That is, of course, because the Wiktionary article is the Wikipedia article transwikied, as that edit comment says. Uncle G 20:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' The above statement is completely false; I'm shocked and repelled to see that repeated falsehoods are being used here to defend the deletion of this article. Compare the first version of the Wiktionary article with Langer. There is no resemblance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only falsehood here is that that hyperlink is to the first version of the Wiktionary article. Follow that link, and click on the "Older revision" hyperlink (that is right there at the top) several times, to find the actual first version of the article, which you will find to be, as I said, almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia one. I find it dismaying to see an editor pointing to the wrong version of the article, incorrectly labelling it as the first version when it is quite obviously (from reading the page or the article history) not, and then claiming to be "shocked and repelled" at supposed falsehoods on the parts of many other editors. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The article history has been manipulated in order to include an earlier version than was previously present on Wiktionary. I am not impressed. That's very naughty, you know. Please do not repeat utterly false accusations in defence of your own patently false claims. Please avoid resort to subterfuges like this. I'd also like to point out that the current version of the Wiktionary article is clearly inadequate in function when compared to the Wikipedia article that a number of people are still, perversely, trying to delete from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only person who has manipulated any article history here has been you, as per the deletion log (given below) where you undeleted the article several times. No-one else has undeleted any article history, either on Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Yet again, you accuse everyone else of doing what in fact only you have been doing. Your campaign of accusations of "falsehoods", "naughtiness", and "subterfuge" on the part of other editors is beginning itself to resemble naughtiness, subterfuge, and disingenuousness; and smacks of assuming bad faith on the parts of all of the rest of us. It also insults the intelligence of everyone here, who can quite easily read the deletion logs and the article histories themselves and find that this article was transwikied, was deleted, and that the first version of the article on Wiktionary is almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia article that you undeleted here. Please stop asserting falsehoods that we can all easily look up in the logs and histories and find to be false (or indeed just follow the hyperlinks that you give and find to be false), and please stop accusing everyone else of doing various things that in fact only you yourself have actually done here.

            And if you can improve the Wiktionary article, do so. Please stop complaining that it's inadequate. Wiktionary is a wiki, too, and ((sofixit)) applies equally as much there as here. Uncle G 01:22:42, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like a good encyclopedia article. No good reason to delete has been given. This vfd was improperly closed before the five day lag time so I have opened it again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure as a speedy delete was quite proper. The article text that was improperly restored on 2005-07-22 had gone through VFD and had been deleted in 2004, and had not gone through VFU and gained a consensus to undelete. Even without CSD criterion A5 applying (which it does — I've double-checked that the author information was properly transferred.), CSD criterion G4 applies. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again you falsely represent the deletion of a transwiki'd article (the context is late last year) as "quite proper." Absolutely not. Repeating a false claim umpteen times won't make it true. You describe the restoration on July 22 as improper. False again. Why do you repeat these patent falsehoods? A5 could not possibly apply since the article was VfD'd some time ago and at the time the current version was created A5 did not exist. You then falsely invoke G4: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy". Since there was no deletion policy applying at the time and no VfD result for delete is on record, again you're piling falsehood upon falsehood, for reasons I find inexplicable. What, precisely, is it that offends you about this article? I'm utterly flummoxed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like the Wikipedia article history, the Wiktionary article history, and the deletion log, which all show what you assert to be the case to be false, the VFD discussion is right there, too.

      Repeating a false claim umpteen times won't make it true. — Indeed. So please stop doing so. We can all see, right there in the deletion log and the article history, your undeletion of the VFDed, transwikied, and (way back in in 2004) deleted version of the article, and we can all see that it is identical to the first version of the Wiktionary article. And we can all see that Wikipedia had a deletion policy in 2004, too, and that the statement that "there was no deletion policy applying at the time" is also false. Uncle G 01:33:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

• Either keep - or merge into the wiktionary article, and delete (can that be done?) --Doc (?) 19:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC) silly me, just remembered WP:NOT a dictionary. --Doc (?) 19:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete dicdef. Should have been speedied per wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Langer. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been, several times. From the deletion log:
    • 17:10, 24 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
    • 12:55, 24 July 2005 Duncharris deleted "Langer" (recreation of previously vfded material)
    • 12:06, 23 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
    • 08:44, 23 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (recreated article that has been Vfded (result: moved to Wiktionary))
    • 23:22, 22 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
    • 22:56, 22 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (delete (yet again) disguised personal attack)
    • 17:54, 22 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
    • 14:25, 22 July 2005 Master Thief Garrett deleted "Langer" (nonsense dicdef; content was: 'Langer. Cork (Ireland) slang, meaning "penis" or obnoxious person". '''Examples:'''John is some langer: John is an obnoxious person.I showed her...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/213.78.71.168|213.78)
    • 15:13, 5 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (nonsense, personal attack)
    • 09:51, 1 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (content was: 'Langer is a Cork slang word. Meaning drunk, penis, fool. EG: Starchaser is a langer, starchaser was langers, or starchaser has a tiny langer.' (and the only contributor was '213.202.154.220'))
    • 15:18, 23 June 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (nonsense)
    • 00:10, 25 March 2005 Duncharris deleted "Langer" (content was: '((delete))Langer is a term used (for the most part) by people from the beautiful city of Cork. Although it can be used as a term of endearment, ...')
    • 02:24, 10 February 2005 Curps deleted "Langer" (patent nonsense; content was: '((del))Langera highly selfish insidious person, normally male, devoid of moral and character, who will, under no circumstances do no man no favour....')
    • 18:36, 2 February 2005 Deb deleted "Langer" (content was: 'Person from Ireland, who is know as a bit of a fool. Slang word for idiot.')
  • Uncle G 21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. as can be seen from the more recent deletions, increasingly indefensible reasons for deletion have been invoked to justify further wrongful speedy deletions after the article has been restored. It's been claimed that this is a "disguised personal attack" (it obviously isn't), the recreation of an article previously correctly deleted as a result of a VfD which it isn't). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content was properly deleted, as per VFD consensus, all the way back in 2004. It was re-created and deleted several times since, as the log shows. It was the undeletion of it that was "improper" and "wrongful". That undeletion should have been done through WP:VFU. It was not. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. You simply repeat the false claim that the article was deleted as a result of a VfD. It was not. The VfD result was transwiki. The transwikied article bears no resemblance to the article we're discussing. This VfD discussion would be considerably more brief if I didn't have to continually correct you on simple matters of verifiable fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again: The first version of the transwikied article is almost word-for-word identical with the article that you undeleted. If you want to "continually correct" people "on simple matters of verifiable fact", please make sure that you actually have a leg to stand upon before you attempt to do so. In this case, it's pretty easy to verify that you're asserting falsehoods. The deletion log is right there for all to see, and shows the article being deleted several times, and you (and only you) undeleting it. The Wikipedia article history is there for all to see, and shows its deletion after VFD and transwiki (on or after 2004-12-06), the various re-creations of the article from scratch beginning on 2005-02-02, and your subsequent reversion on 2005-07-22 to the VFDed version from 2004 that you had undeleted 2 minutes earlier that same day. The Wiktionary article history is right there for all to see, and the first version of the Wiktionary article is simple to compare with the Wikipedia article that you undeleted. Uncle G 01:22:42, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
• Delete. – ishwar  (speak) 21:07, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
• Delete this version. However, there should be a disambiguation for the family name Langer at this entry. Martg76 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Martg76 there is such a name disambiguation at Langer/Temp. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and disambiguate per Martg76. The dictdef should stay at wiktionary. Flowerparty ^talk 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the temp file should be copied to this article and the current article deleted. I can think of at least three notable Australians with this surname namely Albert Langer the activist, Justin Langer the cricketer and Allan Langer the rugby league player. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm going to have to say keep. I'm a Cork man, and i feel that this word is used all the time in ever day life in this part of the world. It has become a way of life and a way in which we distinguish ourselves from the rest of the countys. It has also produces many books and songs that have centered around the phrase, meaning, history and evenmore nowadays the identity it has for the county. If you delete it your going to be fighting a long loosing battle. Us Corkonians are very stubern and will just keep trying to get an entry into the encyclopedia. If it comes to a Delete decision, give it a few months and i'm sure the article will be up again. Ablaze 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - I was going to abstain - but Ablaze changed my mind. With all due respect, that is the worst argument for keep I've ever heard -'vote with us - because we won't accept any decision from the community' is a violation of all that WP stands for. Further WP:NOT a dictionary (not even for Corkonians) - I'd go off and create an article for evey bit of Glaswegian, except for WP:POINT. --Doc (?) 09:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I never meant to sound like that. True that you could put an article for every different type of slang out there and that’s not what WP is about. I was trying to put across the point that the term itself is more than just a dictionary entry or piece of slang in Cork. It a term that makes us distinct from other counties in Ireland. It’s a cultural entry about Cork people and how they use it. I think it deserves a bit more than a wikitionary entry as it has been used in songs and is the subject of many books, and these books are not just on slang. I never meant to sound like you gotta vote for us or whatever, I’ll accept the decision whatever it is, but isn't this the second time its up for debate? Ablaze 11:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I'm appalled that you should think that what makes Cork distinct from other counties is a slang term for penis... I wonder how many natives of Cork would agree with you. If it's true, then I'm glad that my roots are in Limerick.

  Secondly, yes, it has been discussed before, and the vote was to transfer the article to Wiktionary as it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. It was then recreated out of process, and an admin has insisted on recreating it despite near-universal consensus that it should have either stayed deleted or been put through the normal Requests for undeletion procedure. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It is one of many things that is associated with cork. If you asked any Irish Person about the term Langer, what county would they think of? Ablaze

  That's not the point, though — a term might be associated particularly with one group without its being particularly significant, much less definitive of that group. I suspect that in the attempt to defend this article you're grossly exaggerating the significance of this one little bit of vulgarity. (And I have asked Irish friends and relatives, and none of them knew what I was talking about.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not exaggerating the significance of the term at all. If you read the article you will see that the term got country wide recognition last summer with the song. So much so, i found it strange that friends from Dublin and Mayo were using the phrase in a less harsh meaning, like we use it down in Cork. The word has meanings alright to be vulgar, but also used in every day between friends (as it says in the article). I'm just saying what i know is true. Your friends must of been on holidays last summer! :o) Ablaze 13:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If I understand things correctly the sequence of events is thus. The page is put on VfD and the result is transwiki and delete. It is transwikied, and it is deleted. The page is undeleted, and this appears to be out of proccess, so it was deleted again as a recreation (ad nauseum). This second VfD was brought about to end the deletion war (although I suppose maybe a VFU should have been brought about). Therefore, in line with the original decision to delete, this is my vote. -- Joolz 16:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the damned thing already! --Carnildo 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could there be a compromise in deleting this - but adding the additional material to the Wiktionary article? --Doc (?) 21:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Let me explain why, lest folks think that I'm just responding to the putative ambiguity of policy. The new material here is, IMO, not sufficient. There has been an attempt to make this into an article. I readily grant that. However, although the article says that the story of the word is complex, there are no complexities given. There's no philology at all. It's just "this word has many meanings." Well, duh. Most regional sexual slang does. There is a great deal of wheel spinning and smoke generating, but when you boil this down, all you get is, "It means X, Y, Z, and it's regional." I.e. it's still lexical and not philological. Patruriunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus. Geogre 18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, I think there is no ambiguity about the transwiki policy. After transwiki, an article is deleted. This is not spelled out, per our law gamers, because it isn't needed. One criterion for speedy delete has always been "duplicate material." If something exists on one of our projects, we speedy delete from the other project, where it doesn't belong. Thus, no need to say, "And after you transwiki it, you delete it." Geogre 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I dont think its just regional. True that it did originate in Cork but since the song, the remix and the word of mouth around the country, For example, I was at Oxyegen a few weeks ago and the amount of people (not from cork) that i heard using the word was really suprising. The term has a grip on the whole country. I also dont think that you could compromise by adding info on the song etc as it doesn't belong in a Wiktionary.Ablaze 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The song information would not belong in the Wiktionary. However, it does not make this non-lexical. Personally, I'd say, rather, that the effect of the song is null at this point, as it's quite a bit too early to determine if it has caused a real spread of the term or just a pop-culture reference that will fade in a few weeks. However, were we to assume that it is an important fact and one in need of explication (because it's confusing people), the Wiktionary will answer the meaning of the term, and the song, if it's really that popular and important, would be a fit subject for an article. Personally, I don't think so, though, and I think the song is, at this point, just extranneous. Geogre 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wouldn't write the song off as a fade, considering it was released over a year ago and was top of charts for several weeks. Details on the song. And By now most people in Ireland know more or less what a langer is.Ablaze 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slang dicdef already transwiki'd. JamesBurns 07:07, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.