Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 30 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. BJTalk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red cunt hair

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Red cunt hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)


Per NOTDIC The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ::Note to admin - nominator has withdrawn (see below) pablohablo. 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can only be closed if the nominator withdraws AND nobody else votes delete. This has delete votes (and clearly SHOULD be deleted) so it cannot be closed early. DreamGuy (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per this, if the issues addressed in the delete votes were addressed, then the nom is considered withdrawn, and then an admin can close it. So to be fixed mainly is the expansion beyond a WP:NOTDIC. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - DreamGuy is right - relevant policy is tucked away here pablohablo. 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far more than a dictionary definition; in previous AFD we established notability with literary references that have been added. This expression is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia can cater to well; it;s used within niche circles of society (engineers etc), and 'outsiders' will turn to Wikipedia to see what it's all about. It is encyclopaedic; the scope could be broadened, althought his make take time; it is challenging to find good RS for vulgarisms due to the restraints of traditional sources; Wikipedia can do better than that.  Chzz  ►  03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is ridiculous and has no place in an encyclopedia. The idea that a "red cunt hair" is a unit of measurement is just wrong. Just because we like the joke doesn't mean we should play along by describing this as "a notional unit of infinitesimal measure" when we know it's not. It is nothing more than a figure of speech that doesn't measure anything, but describes things that are very small; the same goes for whatever the "hair" unit of measurement is supposed to be.

    So, we have a bunch of claims that there is more than a dictionary definition and well-referenced, both of which are very misguided. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, finding someone using the word in a sentence in a completely unrelated self-published memoir or book about friendship is not a proper reference. I can find all of the words in this sentence used in in books and quote them, but that doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Nor does a term's listing in dictionaries of slang establish a word's encyclopedic notability; all slang words can be expected to be found there. What do we have when we take away the etymology, definition, and quotations—all of which a dictionary does? Well, nothing, because we aren't actually talking about red cunt hairs here, or units of measurement, we are talking about an English-language phrase itself, as if it were an encyclopedic subject. I suppose nickel and dime is a "notional" unit of currency now, worth of an article?. Dominic·t 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep basically per Chzz. While the phrase "cunt hair" is more popular in my part of the world, This type of terminology is a common meme, and the article is much more than a "definition". — Ched :  ?  06:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will no one actually explain how this is supposed to be "more than a definition"? Because it's a common turn of phrase that can be quoted in random sources? I assure you, there are a thousands more common. Dominic·t 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as already exists on Wiktionary),despite thoroughly endorsing articles on matters other sources may omit. Hair generally (as a unit of measurement or in colloquial speech) may have a prospect for an encyclopedic article, but despite the previous AFD, this one is basically just a DICK DEF (sorry, I just had to!). I don't see much prospect of an article on this specific expression beyond typical dictionary material, such as 1) that it's slang for a very small amount, 2) the etymology of the expression, 3) some example sources of usage. This is exactly what we have, in terser style, in Wiktionary.

    If an editor can improve this article to say more on the term than a dictionary entry might, then keep, but at present and despite last AFD, the article doesn't seem to have good prospects of that. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a repetitious re-nomination; the prior AfD was just over a month ago. For an alleged "dictionary definition", this is impressively referenced: indeed, the predominance of reference over text suggests that the existence of the article has been excessively lawyered about, when all of that energy could have been spent in actually expanding the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing impressive about the references. The term exists in dictionaries and can be found used in literature. The same is true for all words. Dominic·t 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many DICDEFS can be referenced, impressively or otherwise. A word or expression being widely used just doesn't speak to whether the article can sustain more than definition, etymology and source usages/cites. Take a look at the Wiktionary article and see if there is anything of significance able to be said about the topic beyond what's likely to be salient in a dictionary. But merely being "a known and citable expression" does not (and never has) by itself qualify a phrase as an encyclopedia entry. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the page move is a good idea as it would alter the focus of the article; many hairs are used as approximate measurements worldwide and this one is no more notable than the others. However page moves are not an Afd issue, they are normal editing practice. This Afd should now be closed, and the editors have at it on the talk page. Completely agree with Mandsford about NOTDIC. pablohablo. 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIC: "Wikipedia Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." 'Red cunt hair' is a concept, not an actual unit of measurement. Dlabtot (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunately, incorrect and poor reasoning. because that definition covers non-notable history, dictionary definitions, and other content that Wikipedia is not equally. In other words, its not a helpful distinction. Some things of that kind are encyclopecic and some are not. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The reason for deleting it has nothing to do with obscenity, but I think, a case could be made, that much of the motivation to create this page, is because of it. This is clearly a trivia article, the so called concept,is just the usage of a a slang phrase. It has value in a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. ... MistyWillows talk 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - incorrect. It would be an automatic endorse if I could see a reason it wasn't a WP:DICDEF. Instead of wondering what others motives are, which is an argument to generally avoid as it carries no weight, can you suggest a reason why it's more than a dictionary definition? (Simply being well sourced means nothing - dictionary entries are impeccably sourced too.) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as above, what exactly makes this meet WP:NOT? And "has excellent sorucing of the term's usage and meaning" isn't really an answer for that point. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the referencing that is in there, it still is a dictionary definition and references are dictionary entries or uses of the phrase and not sources about the sucbject. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor neologism or urban slang at best. No widespread notability established - and even if such was, it would still be for a slang dictionary, not for an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one can argue notability (and I think it is clearly notable), "slang" terms like this fall under WP:NNN. So if it were notable and met those requirements (which I think it does), it does belong here. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being well referenced, by itself, does not make something encyclopedic. "Red cunt hair'" is still just an idiom, I could just as easily write a well referenced article for "In a pigs eye","Clusterfuck", or "Piss in the wind". Bottom line: WP:NOTDIC ... MistyWillows talk 09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call your WP:NOTDIC policy and raise you with the WP:NNN guideline which is perhaps more on point. I think we define phrases in certain circumstances. If this is one of those that meet our standards should be the debate IMO, not "we don't do this kind of thing" because we clearly do and have guidelines that support doing so. Hobit (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page is a red herring (and a bit odd to call someone's policy and raise them a guideline). That's not even a inclusion policy, it's about style, as the tag says at the top. Of course we define unfamiliar phrases when we use them in articles, and might even be forced to use a neologism as the title of an article where the neologism is the best name for an encyclopedic topic. But as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't have articles that simply define and discuss a term itself (rather than any encyclopedic concept they name), whether they are neologisms or not. Dominic·t 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(More to the point, WP:NNN also says exactly the same as the nomination: "Articles on neologisms: [...] Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are: [...] Wikipedia is not a dictionary".) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_cunt_hair_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136469519"