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 no consensus. Black Kite 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AFD two years later, it is a clear violation of WP:DICDEF and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and in the two years has yet to be sourced or improved into a usable article. It simply cannot be constructed in a manner that would be a presentable article. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to delete the rest of Category:Profanity and Category:Profanity by language or is there some specific problem with Portuguese profanity? Polarpanda (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The "Shorter list..." section is an indiscriminate list, but the lead section includes encyclopedic (if unsourced) information. The long-standing and as yet unanswered calls for cleanup and improvement seem like a case of WP:There is no deadline. Cnilep (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviouly promising and contains cultural and historical dimensions that could turn this into a good article. While I've never edited this, I have worked on related articles including Latin profanity and Esperanto profanity, so the general type of article interests me, and this is part of a series. (One of these days I'm going to have to get around to Proto-Indo-European profanity.) The fact that two years have passed does not mean that a deadline has run. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's got a good point about this being unsourced after all these years. I can understand that it's not published in a book, but isn't there at least a website someone can point to? For all we know, the source is "João, my friend from Brazil". Mandsford (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the article is quiet discriminate, perhaps it could be more so, but it is far from a useless jumble of information. It is a weak dictionary, but only because it is poorly constructed. As far as I know there is no expiration date for poorly constructed articles.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (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.