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. OBVIOUSLY. 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Man In Black (talk • contribs)

List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to many people with disabilities[edit]

List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to many people with disabilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Lists can be very useful on Wikipedia, but I think this is taking it a bit too far. We don’t need a list of everything that can possibly be listed, and I think this would fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, though it doesn’t fall under any of the specific categories. No pages link there, and I doubt any would. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You're forgetting the first heading in WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, WP needs more lists, not less! -- Librarianofages 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that doesn't mean we should make a list for everything. Who would ever need this list? As WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE says, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you can't concieve of a use now doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else, imagine if someone was doing research on the attitudes of hi-tech companies to disabled people, this article might prove highly useful, perhaps all it really needs is to be expanded beyond the scope of a mere list... -- Librarianofages 01:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but there's got to be some limit. A list of how tall the buildings on your street are might be useful also, but does that mean we should include that in Wikipedia? -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am Jack's sense of total and utter indifference, You're probably right anyway. -- Librarianofages 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just noticed that this was prodded on Jan 27 by Subwayguy but an anonymous IP removed it ([1]). -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unencyclopedic original research. Nardman1 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the "lame" list. I think it was created as a joke. Croxley 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Djma12 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not encyclopedic content, even remotely. --Haemo 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. What's next, List of software projects whose name is not a term offensive to many people with disabilities? (please, nobody create that)? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "listcruft" a category? Because i think it probably should be. I bet there are quite a few articles that would qualify. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ROFL, go create it, it would a most ironic event! -- Librarianofages 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not doing my usual citation of policy, this is just silly. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research and the list's title also indicates a blatant POV. No reliable sources referenced to indicate that people with disabilities find these program names to be offensive, much less "many", and probably no such sources exist. --Farix (Talk) 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant POV and possibly actionable by the companies cited. If these were names of people being listed instead of software, it would have been speedy deleted per WP:BLP. 23skidoo 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the idea has merit, it is not encyclopedic in nature and is really an opinion piece. --Xnuala 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The criterion for inclusion in this list is too subjective; sources would be highly difficult to find. —Carolfrog 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft. John Reaves (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant POV article, indiscriminate, unsourced and unprovable. Resolute 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOLYCRAPWHATWEREYOUON JuJube 06:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am a keen defender of lists and AFD articles that might have a future, but there has to be a limit. POV & WP:NOT. AntiVan 06:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. No sources verifying the claims made, such as that these software products are offensive to people with disabilities. --Shirahadasha 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted, if I may comment. I more or less have a point (or points) similar to those above, and feel that this wiki is unwarranted; besides, the title may be a tad too long, and with such "software projects", such as "The GIMP", what makes it "offensive to many people with disabilities"? Prior knowledge, yes, I suppose. Again, this is subjective, and 'unencyclopaedic'. -Qwerty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy #*(& ... I mean, delete. Of the two sources provided in the article which I could access, both mentioned terms like "spastic" as being offensive, but did not specifically tie it to "software projects". It's not a big jump and not even original research (if A=B, and B=C, is it's not OR to say that A=C, where A, B, and C, are "offensive", "spastic", and "software project", as its simple deduction and not research). If there is a Political correctness in relation to disabilities article, then maybe merge it to that. Otherwise, the scope of the article is just too narrow (WP:NOT). -- Black Falcon 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify my comment above: A strict logical deduction of the nature presented above (A=B, B=C, ergo A=C) is not OR. However, it is OR to imply that because the word "gimp" is offensive when applied to disabled persons, the acronym "GIMP" applied to a software project is offensive as well. So, delete per OR. -- Black Falcon 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DAFT, with emphasis on the "D". Grutness...wha? 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy DeleteAl-Bargit 11:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Every word can have an offensive meaning, given that there are 6000 languages on our planet[reply]
• Delete Gimp the lame crips. --Golbez 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kill it now before we have a rash of similar lists about what's offensive to whom. List of wireless web-access standards whose name is a term offensive to many persons of Italian ancestry, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on delete - for obvious reasons. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow. Just ... wow. Arkyan 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just cos I find it fkn hilarious, as a biffy!!! (oops, am I allowed to call myself a biffy or have I just offended myself?!) Jcuk 16:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (ps not an entirely serious comment, although I really am a biffy and it is fkn hilarious!)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT indiscriminate information. Not encyclopedic. A Train ^{take the} 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in order to avoid List of software projects whose name is a term offensive to a small number of people with disabilities. dcandeto 17:55, 27 February 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.