Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:31, 7 July 2007 editDangerous-Boy (talk | contribs)18,524 edits keep← Previous edit Revision as of 02:56, 8 July 2007 edit undoDaGizza (talk | contribs)Administrators34,676 edits →[]: transwikiNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
:*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 ]. 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. ] 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :*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 ]. 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. ] 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Useful article with supra-dicdef content. ] 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Useful article with supra-dicdef content. ] 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:* See ] ] 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' - IMO ] 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. ] 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
* '''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 ] 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 ]s form only a miniscule part of the usage discussed.-- ] 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) * '''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 ] 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 ]s form only a miniscule part of the usage discussed.-- ] 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:* While some words do provide dictionarial definitions, it also goes on to provide the neologistic definitions, with no citations, categoriziting it as purely ] ] 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - helps me communicate.--] 05:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - helps me communicate.--] 05:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Transwiki''' to ]. Seems more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. <b><font color="teal">]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">]</font></b></sup> 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:56, 8 July 2007

Spanish profanity

AfDs for this article:
Spanish profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

  • I was patrolling RC and noticed this article and I think "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." applies to this article Corpx 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a guide to, uh, Spanish swears. --Haemo 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Mier... coles! Strong Keep "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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", Misplaced Pages brings other streets to the user. Mandsford 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The main article shows the history/usage/and some references. This article is just a list of words and their defintions. Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
  • Keep Okay, I've reviewed WP:NOT, as well as the article and similar articles. It's true that Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. They may be in time, but not yet". I think this applies directly to this article Corpx 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll do some hunting, but I believe the lack of the type of sources you mention is because this is the English Misplaced Pages, 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 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 02:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Categories: