Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin profanity

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The result was Keep this merda as withdrawn. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin profanity

Page fails WP:NOT#Dictionary. Content lacks in proper sourcing, causing it to fail WP:NOR. Page would potentially be better suited for wikitionary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not a page from a dictionary - it is suitable for an encyclopedia. The article is well sourced, and there are piles and piles of doctrine on the Latin language already, some of which are cited - the topic's not being originally-researched here. Wiktionary wouldn't take it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It remains a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a list of profanities, nor a list of dictionary definitions. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an encyclopedic subject. Also the sourcing can be fixed, there's no need to AfD for this. bogdan (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, can be properly sourced, and Wiktionary would not be able to discuss it in prose in the same way. A from L.A. (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is more than just dicdefs; there's a lot here on linguistics, cultural attitudes to profanity, and human sexuality. Moreover, it's coherent, so its not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. The sourcing can definitely be improved; indeed, I have some relevant source books at home. They're currently packed, but once they're back on the shelves, I'll see what I can do. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing can be improved. Several of the more important sources for this topic are already present in the references section. The article is not perfect but obviously not just a list of dictionary definitions. Please close this AfD quickly. Aramgar (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously because they are LONG dictionary definitions makes them encyclopedic. How did I miss that? *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aramgar: Unless WP:SNOW applies, there's no good reason to close an AfD early. There's no reason for this not to run for the usual five days. Kyaa: You may find sarcasm less than constructive; I think it's fair to assume Aramgar has commented in good faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started this article. When I did, I did my best to make certain that each entry contained as much cultural, literary, and historical information as I had available, to preserve it from precisely the charge that it was only a list of definitions. It is also a part of a series of articles on profanity by language, which contains other favorite articles, including another I started (Esperanto profanity), other fascinating subjects of legitimate curiosity (Profanity in American sign language), and model articles I used to format this one (Quebec French profanity). Please close this so I can move on to the more important subject of collecting material for Proto-Indo-European profanity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Other Stuff Exists is an argument to avoid in these discussions. I'm sure you find this fascinating, but Wikipedia should be an encycopedia, not an in-depth dictionary of profanity. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs cleanup, but that doesn't require an AfD. — neuro^(talk) 12:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AlexTiefling said what I wanted to say. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn It sounds like my main concerns will be address per the promises above, I'll let this go. I thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (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.