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 keep. The article is decidedly encyclopedic, not just listing words and what they mean but going into the national differences in Spanish-language profanity. Profanity varies greatly by language and indeed even within languages geographically as well as historically, as native English speakers can bloody well attest. It is eminently possible to write an encyclopedic article about profanity in a particular language, especially one spoken as widely as Spanish, and this one is a pretty good start in that direction, though it will need more sources. There should be fewer lists of words in the article, but the mere presence of word lists in otherwise text-based articles does not automatically trigger WP:WINAD, and anyone who thinks it does is invited to set up a Wiktionary account and edit or create entries there so that they may better appreciate the difference. Daniel Case 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish profanity[edit]

Spanish profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." from WP:NOT. All this article does is translate Spanish profanity into english. Wikipedia is not a translation guide Corpx 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Corpx 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing wrong with it, I wouldn't even say it needed cleanup. What made you single this one out? —Xezbeth 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was patrolling RC and noticed this article and I think "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." applies to this article Corpx 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a guide to, uh, Spanish swears. --Haemo 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - though I'd like to see it tightened/synthesised a bit better (along the lines of Latin profanity), it's still a reasonable article -- goes beyond just a dictionary and in its organisation I think beyond just a usage guide too. -Zeborah 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mier... coles! Strong Keep "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia" applies perfectly to this instance. As the main article Profanity shows, understanding a culture includes knowing what subjects are considered "bad words" in that culture's language. Although this would not be found in a high-school Spanish textbook, there are published sources for this kind of information. The article is well-written and non-POV, and needs to be sourced, but not deleted. Finally, although I'm sure some will have misgivings that the average high school Spanish class student will use Wikipedia for "swear words", the average high school teacher simply cannot teach offensive words without running afoul of the local school board. Since one typically learns this "from the streets", Wikipedia brings other streets to the user. Mandsford 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article shows the history/usage/and some references. This article is just a list of words and their defintions. Wikipedia has an article about Metaphor. Does this mean we should have a Spanish metaphors list with accompanying definitions and usage? This isnt the place to offer translations and word usages from other languages. Corpx 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is NOT A DICTIONARY!!! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hammer. Bulldog123 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed that there are currently 7 similar articles (Category:Profanity by language) Calgary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put them all up for AFD after this one's over. Its kinda too late to add those onto this nominationCorpx 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Okay, I've reviewed WP:NOT, as well as the article and similar articles. It's true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or jargon guide, but I don't see how this article is acting as a jargon guide. The article is not an instructional guide to cussing in Spanish, it is instead and informative article about Spanish language profanity, including a good deal of background information, context and the like. The appropriate question, therefore, is not one of "Is this article a language guide?" (as it isn't), but is instead "Is the subject of Spanish profanity notable?", to which I would answer that yes, it's notable enough. Calgary 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article contains pure dictionarial content. It has a list of words, the place of orgin, and a definition/use. Isnt this what you find in a dictionary? I'd also like to argue a group of words in another language is not notable. We dont need Spanish metaphors or Portuguese Clichés or Russian Buzzwords or Hindi slang because this is the english wikipedia and we shouldnt entail ourselves to providing definitions for foreign language words Corpx 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Highly informative article, full of contextual text and not a list, as purported by the editor proposing deletion. Please move on to proposing the deletion of truly non-notable and nonsensical pages, neither of which this is. Badagnani 07:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, full of valuable cultural resource information. One of these days, it seems I'm going to wake up and find that the entire project has been blanked. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire basis of this article, the references, are to dictionaries and slang dictionaries. I dont think dictionarial content belongs here. Corpx 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep we went through this with Italian awhile back, and Spanish is no less encyclopedic (I'll admit my bias, I speak Spanish fluently and Italian less than fluently). And dictionaries are suddenly suspect as reliable sources, my, my, if it isn't on American Idol or related to Pokemon I guess some think that WP shouldn't have to include it. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This is well-written, useful article, and it does not simply give a dictionary definition, it gives encyclopedic history and analysis (not to mention the AFD precedent for keep...) VanTucky ^(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is one references stated for the article and WP:NEO - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." WP:NEO also goes on to say that "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet". I think this applies directly to this article Corpx 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some hunting, but I believe the lack of the type of sources you mention is because this is the English Wikipedia, and it is a foreign-language subject. But I'm sure there has to be at least a few books about Spanish slang/profanity for English students. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there are even any pages here about English slang which solely the meaning/history of the words. Corpx 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you forget a word, because I can't understand what you meant? And of course there would be no pages, there could only be articles. And I'm not saying the Spanish article should be rewritten to consist only of meta-analysis. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bleh, let me rephrase. What I was saying is that there is not even an article here about english slang, which I would guess would be more documented through English books. However, if you can find a book in English about Spanish slang and you can document the meaning/usage of all of the words there, I dont think the article in that form would violate WP:NEO. Even then, I think it would be a bunch of words with their definitions/orgin cited, which is pretty much what a dictionary is for. Corpx 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful article with supra-dicdef content. Spacepotato 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:USEFUL Corpx 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - IMO WP:USEFUL is a very stupid page, which has led to the deletion, over the past months, of many highly valuable articles, on which editors have worked for years. You're free to recommend pages for other editors to read, but don't expect that they will accept them as gospel. Badagnani 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- definitely, as an interesting and useful account of groups of concepts and their usage spanning various parts of the Spanish-speaking world and transcending the artificial boundaries between dictionary and encyclopedia in the grand tradition of the Larousse encyclopedic dictionary. Far more than offering dictionary definitions or translations, this article does not merely offer a guide to mould usage, but gives helpful contextualising information adding to understanding -- whether or not one speaks some variety of Spanish. And neologisms form only a miniscule part of the usage discussed.-- Pedant17 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While some words do provide dictionarial definitions, it also goes on to provide the neologistic definitions, with no citations, categoriziting it as purely WP:OR Corpx 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - helps me communicate.--D-Boy 05:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Seems more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Actually, many would think this is inappropriate, which is why it's not in a paper dictionary. In looking over the article, I think it should be required reading for anyone going overseas, since it outlines what's considered obscene (i.e. what you should know to avoid) in different parts of the Spanish speaking world. In Panama, for instance, "hacer" (to do) can have the sexual connotation. Just as a foreign visitor to the US could get in trouble by saying "I did it with your wife last night," an innocent abroad can inadvertently step on toes elsewhere. Sometimes, being halfway fluent in a language is too much and too little at the same time. Mandsford 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel brochure ("required reading for anyone going overseas"), that's Wikitravel. And Wiktionary is not a paper dictionary obviously. Wiktionary is more an average dictionary. Many Glossary of ABC terms have been transwikied there. I see this page similarly as a glossary of terms. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and nominate Italian profanity for deletion as well. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear case of WP:WINAD. I see a lot of WP:ITSUSEFULL arguments calling for "speedy keep" (apparently the !voters are unversed in WP:CSK policy), none of which have addressed the policy concern of WINAD. The Evil Spartan 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic of Spanish profanity is a notable encyclopedic topic, plenty of references can be found other than the ones already listed in the article, and this article is more than just a list of dictionary definitions, with the potential to be much more. DHowell 23:19, 10 July 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.