Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity (4th nomination)

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. There seems to be consensus that the subject matter is notable. The article may need cleanup to meet our standards, but that isn't a matter for AfD.

(non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Spanish profanity

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

This article is not an article but simply a mostly unsourced collection of prurient and puerile words in Spanish. The article should be deleted under

WP:NOT, WP:NOTADICTIONARY and WP:SYNTH (given that there are no sources about "Spanish profanity" in general, but is pieced together of aritcles (mostly dictionary entries) that mention specific swear words). This material is not encyclopedic, but if it needs to be on wiki should be moved to wiktionary. Previous AfDs have failed because it has been considered that it is possible to write an article about the topic - I agree in principle, but such an article would not include any of the current content which is closer to a list article. I dont think an article titled "List of Spanish swear words" would fall under wikipedias mission statement and that is essentially what the article is currently.Google books only two books on "Spanish Profanity" are ripped from this very wikipedia page - in google scholar I found nothing. Hence keep voters should show which literature supports the notion that this topic is notable enough to pass the GNG. The argument here is not that the topic or the words are offensive so dont try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as an argument. Also the problem is not the quality of the article but that it is not possible to write a better article because there are no sources that can be used to build a coherent article on this topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

- It is really sad that four editors can comment here without providing valid policy based arguments, or addressing the deletion rationale.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you consider that the article is better or worse than
talk) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, or one I care to even consider.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't making any argument, per se, and you have misread my comment if you think I was. FYI, it sometimes happens that a group of articles are nominated for deletion together; if you thought that

talk) 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep.
✈ 01:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the arguments presented are about cleanup, but about notability and encyclopedic fit. Please demonstrate notability of topic with literature and present argument for why the topic doesnt violate WP:NOT to argue for keep.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep If the topic is notable, then the solution is to improve the article - however difficult that may be. The article does include at least some meaningful text over and above Spanish swearwords ("Spanish profanity varies significantly among Spanish-speaking nations, and even in regions of the same nation. Idiomatic expressions, particularly profanity, are not always directly translatable into other languages") and I do not see what would be accomplished by deleting it.
talk) 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

So demonstrate that it is notable with some serious sources on the topic. That an article has "at least some meaningful text" does not demonstrate that a topic is notable or encyclopedic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that sources need to be provided to show notability. Your deletion rationale was flawed nevertheless, as you asserted that an article could be created about Spanish profanity but that it "would not include any of the current content". Some at least of the current content seems acceptable.

talk) 08:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Seems notable enough. Article needs heavy work though, I don't see many infamous ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to support that feeling with an argument, and preferably also some sources?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now it's apparent where all of them are. You deleted them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted was entirely unsourced. The material in there now is sourced, but to dictionaries that are not about the topic of the article and which therefore does not support notability - making the article as it stands now OR and Synth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you removed was incredibly general and without even need to be sourced, and sources for that material can be found instantly. Instead of deleting you should have spent a minute per term adding a source for it if you're so determined about the citations... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (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.