Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle

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. Keep arguments haven't effectively refuted the essential deletion argument that there aren't the sources to expand this beyonga dicdef and its already covered in wikt

Moose knuckle

Moose knuckle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see

• Delete. This is the definition of a
  dictionary definition. tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 200,000 plus google hits including news outlets. For sexist equality, see camel toe. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and Tedder.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep -
  talk) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See my new !vote below.--

talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• comment - Howev, w/concern this term's--"negative," I guess one could say? --connotation/tone: Don't know if deletion would really be tantamount to a net victory or defeat toward achieving the goals of, say, the
  talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It appears they kept Cameltoe soley because it's a widely used word, with mention in some mainstream newspapers. Nobody cited any sources that provided any encyclopedic content other than the definition. Misguided deletion decisions like that make me wonder if they don't just need to decide that Wikipedia is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If we can get rid of Visible penis line and moose knuckle, I'd be happy to re-nominate cameltoe, in the hopes of getting away from these dictionary definitions and back on track. Same goes for handbra. On the other hand, trying to delete dictionary definitions of slang terms could easily turn into a full time job, considering how many editors like writing dictionary definitions. Why don't they just go to Wiktionary and define slang terms to their heart's content? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge (a re-!vote, from above; per
  talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong delete with exactly the same reasoning as my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what sources are available, not how many are currently cited. There are many sources available. (In any case, the ones included are not all self-published, per your claim).--

talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMoose_knuckle μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The WIktionary entry seems to do an adequate job, obviating the need for this stub. Got to spin a better yarn if this is to be kept. So far, it's just a few trivial mentions of this neologism. Failing deletion, we might find references to Kirk Douglas' chin before long. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Ohconfucius, what can we do? I'm afraid that unlike "

talk) 16:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Its obvious from even the discussion above there is sufficient material and references to write more than just a definition. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cite this material specifically. We need to see encyclopedic content about the term. Not just proof that the term is being used. That only proves existence. See, again,
  WP:NOTDICT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as
  tanga (clothing) and cameltoe. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with visible penis line. Hans Adler 17:03, 14 June 2011 (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.