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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sections on usage and popular culture are Original research besides. De-prodded with comment "it is encyclopedic." I disagree, it's Wiktionaric. Already transwikied. Pan Dan 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary entry. I think it is appropriate to an encyclopedia that covers popular western culture. Although it gets vandalized a lot, I have been watching it for a long time. It's just as legitimate as articles like Hello and many other articles that explore the encyclopedic side of words, that dictionaries generally don't. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Keep! More content than there is at wiktionary:Yo. Ab e g92contribs 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the transwiki no content would be lost even if this article were deleted from Wikipedia. I don't know how Wiktionary works, but I assume you are free to merge Wiktionary:Transwiki:Yo into Wiktionary:Yo. Pan Dan 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a sad mess in need of pruning, but I think the word's long history (it goes back to the 30s) and wide, varied usage means this deserves more than a simple dictionary entry. I've added another source to the article, and hopefully people will turn up more. William Pietri 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref, but I wish you had added it to the Wiktionary entry instead. Dictionary entries don't have to be "simple." Information about the extensive usage and history of "yo" should go in its entry on Wiktionary. Pan Dan 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... What's your test for which words deserve an entry in Wikipedia as well as Wiktionary? Thanks, William Pietri 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WINAD, Wiktionary articles "are about the actual words or idioms in their title" and "A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; ...". Information about a given word is Wiktionary content. In the case of "yo," I can certainly imagine that a Wikipedia article may be possible, for example perhaps on controversy generated by its usage. (This of course would depend on whether there are any reliable sources on that.) But the current version of Yo is 100% Wiktionary content. Pan Dan 12:44, 12 March 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.