Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry pirate

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 of the debate was delete. Verification trumps hearts. While the Savage article implies that this is used in common parlance, a single source isn't enough. Not to impune Dan's reputation, but responding to an anonymous email from "JACK OFF WANGS" isn't the best citation we could ask for. - brenneman^{L} 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry pirate

non-encyclopedic: (joke) sexual position, possible hoax. Was prod and prod2 but was cleared. RJFJR 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax or joke, the "sources" are a joke, too. (Yes, I was about to AFD it as well...) Sandstein 21:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but rewrite. Google seems to indicate that the alcoholic beverage is notable. The sexual... whatever is not. --Hyperbole 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Whoever wrote this is just trying to disseminate jokes on Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, made up in school --Deville (Talk) 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. (WIkipedia is also not for things made up in the pub just before closing). Bucketsofg 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. the beginning of the entry is clearly a real description, and explains the 'angry pirate' as the same act that all of the sex dictionaries do, but is a bit more sophisticated. as for the parts that are a joke, tney still seem pretty thoughtful, and this entry wouldn't generate any heat for being a little jokey if it wasn't sexual. and, the drinks are real. so, keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin.e.c. (talk • contribs)

User's first and only edit; probable sock/meatpuppet. -Colin Kimbrell 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: nn neologism. --Hetar 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; the sentence beginning "Queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative" implies this can't be anything but patent nonsense. Catamorphism 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: this was my entry originally. there are entries for the angry pirate in every major online sexual and slang dictionary as well as the encyclopedia of sex. the drink recipes are widely available. the possibility that the angry pirate is entirely a joke is included as a parenthetical qualifier within the text, but there is no evidence to suggest that it isn't a "real" scenario as it's included on sites alongside many socially accepted sexual practices. regardless of its status as a scenario which is acted out in actuality, it is a socially relevant narrative described in detail on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of independent sites around the web. Perhaps recategorizing under "sexual urban legends" would suffice? Davidelliot
• Delete, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_dragon and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arabian_goggles, among others. Widespread pop-culture use is the only thing that gets a fake sex act like Dirty Sanchez over the bar, and "Angry pirate" doesn't have that going for it. -Colin Kimbrell 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP: Notable. This is a well-known term in may circles. Though no Dirty Sanchez it is also much more notable than something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_dragon. I have heard references to this from acquaintances living throughout the US who do not know each other (though I admit that this is not a sufficient basis for inclusion, it is what called my attention to the wrongfulness of this AFD). More centrally, though, this is a well-cited, well-researched and well-written article. We should not let it die just because certain editors have not personally heard of this term. Also above argument that "'Queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative' implies this can't be anything but patent nonsense" mis troubling as an argument. Maybe this one line is nonsense, added to an otherwise valid article (which this is) for gag vale -- the logical solution to this problem is seemingly to simply delete the disputed sentence, not vote to delete the entire article. Interestingstuffadder 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.

• The article is not well-cited. It doesn't include inline citations. Also, as neither Urban Dictionary nor The Encyclopedia of Sex meet our standards for sources, the article violates WP:NOR. There are no citations from legitimate sources (newspapers, reference books, etc.).
• The article is not well-researched. It's basically just a dictionary definition of the term, and does not provide any additional information, such as the phrase's origin and localization, or notable examples of its use.
• The article is not well-written. As you noted, almost half of it is a bunch of joke lines about "queer and feminist critiques of the angry pirate narrative" or the acidity of female ejaculate, which don't add any encyclopedic value. It's not even well-written from a technical standpoint, as it doesn't conform to the manual of style: the article's title is not bolded, it starts with a number rather than with text, internal wikilinks are treated as external links, etc.

To be honest, I find the article even less impressive than some of the deleted examples I mentioned earlier. -Colin Kimbrell 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, not notable, a "real" description of this does not exist, espeically if the main reference for this term is from urbandictionary.com, a site that well, isn't reliable at all, espeically since that site alone has 18 different deffinitions of the term. Radagast83 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I did find one print citation of the "Angry pirate", this Dan Savage column, where he states that it (along with a long list of other things) "exists only in the imaginations of adolescent boys". -Colin Kimbrell 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Making (non-notable) jokes into articles turns this encyclopedia into a joke. This is, IMHO, one notch higher than the vandals who write "penis" on random articles. Ifnord 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pending third-party reliable verification. Ziggurat 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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.