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 an entirely unsourceable article full of original research. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala Slang[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and absurd verifiability problems. Has anyone read the references section? The article practically nominates itself for deletion, to quote the article: It is difficult and nearly impossible to find referances to Sinhala colloquial slang in any form of formal literature availble in the Internet. The sooner we get rid of this the better. Burntsauce 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burntsauce I thank you for your suggestions, which at the end will do good for WP, the article and the Sinhala language itself, whatever the outcome is going to be. Keep the up the good patroling Ritigala Jayasena 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is hukanawa-ing awful. While I agree in principle with the idea that unsourced articles should simply be fixed, in this case the lack of sourcing leaves us wondering whether this is even legitimate. Cap'n Walker 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats with your first Sinhalese word buddy :) Seems somehow you went though this fucking awful article and able to learn one of it. Keep learning!!! ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If engrish and ebonics have pages, I don't see why this shouldn't as well. It should be cleaned up to mimic those pages in my mind. (edit: forgot sig) Mancide 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Mancide. Thanks Taprobanus 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember this is not a vote. If there are no reliable sources to support the content, we do not host it, period. Burntsauce 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not cited work. --Mnemnoch 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless independent, credible, verifiable sources supplied. Sources don't have to be online (though lack of online sources would be surprising if a genuine spoken slang), but lack of any attempt to source causes problems with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if only because it's a really awful article. Moreschi ^Talk 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a slang guide.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article: unreferenced words, not credible. Many misinterpretations. No authentic sources cited— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.169 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP is not a neologism guide Corpx 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a slang guide!! As a Sinhalese, I was horrified to see what has put as Sinhala Slang on this page. It is just a horrible list of Fowl language!! Delete It pleaseUser:dharshanav— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.24.78 (talk • contribs)

Deleting becuase of lack of sources is valid argument. Deleting because of 'Fowl' language is not a valid argument. Would you recomend deleting Fuck and Cunt as well? Ritigala Jayasena 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , I beleive referances can be found and will be included in the article. Scholarly articles on Sinhala language is anyway rare on the net, and I do not agree on making it an excuse to delete the article. The native speakers of Sinhala knows that this is an accurate list of Sinhala slang. The only reason that I can think of that a native speaker of Sinhala opposes this article, is the awakwardness of seeing Sinhala profanity in print (which they are not used to), If the offending section is only the profanity, perhaps we should get rid of only that section. I also have doubts why Sri Lankan Tamil slang has only recived an warning and not recomended for deletion. The article Sri Lankan Tamil slang does not have any more referances than Sinhala Slang and only thing is that it is not being honest about it in "Referances" section like Sinhala Slang. Ritigala Jayasena 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (with reservation) . It is useful to have this article about Sinhala Slang, but: 1) it would need an advertisement at the beginning, because of some offending terms; 2) some sources should be cited. Some years ago, there was on the Internet an article about Sinhala Slang on a website that went offline, I have still a printed copy. It was useful, even if some terms were offensive. I believe that if this article is improved -- instead of being deleted -- can be appropriate in Wikipedia. Paryeshakaya 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When this article nominate for deletion it was a complete OR but somehow Ritigala Jayasena able to cite some references. If someone think that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia, I like to suggest them to read Category:Sexual slang and Category:Slang by language. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a relatively new article. I believe that references can be found at least for some sections and within few days those will be referenced properly. However any native Sinhala speaker would know the difficulty of finding the proper reference for many entries in this page including most profanity. By the way I can't understand why some Sinhala speakers are 'horrified' to see Sinhala profanity being recorded. This is an attempt to record those in scholarly manner. May be the article has not yet achieved that style. But one should understand the importance of recording those in the path of preserving the same. Without slang, which inevitably includes profanity Sinhala will soon become a dead language. Amiladm 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the above claim that the Sinhala language will seeze to exist, with so called recording of the Sinhala profane. When I read it first my feeling was that it was written by someone who had a disturbed mental state or had nothing else important to do, If really want to record profane Sinhala record it in a relevant place.. please do not mislead others (who dont know Sinhala) to think that the Sinhala language slang in mostly consisting of profanity. Actually I think the original authors are trying to kill the language than saving it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.127.228 (talk • contribs)

You can believe what your tastes allow you to believe. However, I personally know that this article is already getting lot of attention from Sri Lankan adolescents and young adults. It is a good exercise fro them to read and understand the underlying assumptions and mentality which leads to the creation of the slang that they use. It is a good exercise for adults as well to understand the evolution of language. What is slang today is the language of tomorrow. All that exercise is good for the language. Besides the concern here is not whether the article agrees with the individual taste of the conservative thinkers from Sri Lanka; but whether the article is appropriate to WP due to pure Original Research (OR) and the lack of cited sources. In this Delete talk page lets talk only about that aspect, and have all the other discussions about the ‘taste’ in the Talk Page of the article itself. Ritigala Jayasena 02:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ritigala Jayasena, Do you really think it is only the Srilankan adolescents and young adults reading this article? And do you think they read it to gain knowledge (this is assuming they have access to internet)??? What about the other people who are genuinely interested in the actual Srilankan Slang?? What you are trying here to distort the real Srilankan slang with some of the fowl language words that you know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.127.228 (talk • contribs)

Dear 172.201.127.228, your views are better expressed in the Talk Page of the Sinhala Slang Article itself. As I indicated in my above reply, the matter being discussed here in this pageis about the OR nature of Sinhala Slang article, and the lack of cited sources; and not the 'Fowl' (you mean foul?) language. I am sure Burntsauce never had a concern with the contents of the article, when he/she recomended the article for deletion. I infact agree that article lack basic WP needs when he/she first saw it. You however like to discuss the content. You beleive that examples given are not representative. That also means you know better examples. Your views are welcome in the Talk Page or you can even contribute to the article itself. However, I assume you can comprehend the differance between using foul language to discuss scholarly topic vs. discussing foul language as a scholarly topic (i.e. as inhere and here) Ritigala Jayasena 07:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice; throw the baby out with the bathwater. The guiding principle here should be verifiability, which will, alas, do a number on the profanity. The problem here is we've got an article that's not only widely uncited but even admits that it can't be sourced. Scrap it but recreate it if and only if sources can be provided for each term on a case-by-case basis. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete please with no prejudice the article is widely not verifiable but can be created again later yuckfoo 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The so-called "references" recently added after the start of this AFD are not references, they fail to cite or corroborate anything within the article. The verifiability issues have not been addressed, pointing to a list of books does nothing to substantiate the existing problem text. RFerreira 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination, the article fails our standards for verifiability and lacks reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 13 August 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.