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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fit in or fuck off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Dictionary definition of a neologism, don’t see how this is discretely different from what squares like me call bigotry or prejudice. Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, dicdef indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, solely a dictionary definition. Hgual (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 22:37, 13 April 2022 Ponyo blocked Hgual with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Long-term abuse: WP:BKFIP)[reply]
• Delete might be notable if it's a catch phrase for some television character, this isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking the article at hand, without yet getting to researching it independently, I went through all of the books, and none of them are actually discussions of a concept. There's a dictionary of slang, a reference to a letter that someone once wrote to a newspaper editor, and everything else is either a quotation, or worse a quotation within a quotation, with no explanatory content. The actual article sources are no better. The Sabotage Times does not appear to exist any more; the Barrett article is about sexual harrassment at a specific company; and the Saunders article is about sexual harrassment too, it's sole relation to this subject being that it uses the phrase in censored form as headlinese. Searching, then, I could not find anything that discusses a concept by this name, which is not unexpected since good sources will use an actual name for whatever they document and not slang, or a potential way to refactor that isn't something that we already have by a non-slang name. The best redirect target seems to be social norm, since it is pressure to conform to workplace norms that good sources discuss this subject as. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is for Wiktionary at best. This is not a notable, encyclopedia-worthy topic. All we have here is a list of different people using the phrase. Banks Irk (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:DICDEF. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable/not encyclopedic. Llwyld (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting digression from the merits of whether the article should be deleted or not Banks Irk (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Expurgating/Bowdlerizing and marking up the article so that a whole section and references do not show skews this whole discussion. Rigged game would be a fair characterization. Please take your thumb off the scale. The article and the question of notability ought to be decided on the merits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] What are you talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] 7&6=thirteen, your accusation that the section was commented out in order to rig this AfD discussion is poor form and not in keeping with WP:AGF. Also, the edit was made before the AfD started. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sorry that you were confused about the timing. Thanks for answering Dronebogus's question. That the material was "disappeared" is not in doubt. which you now admit. Since the article is now restored, you ought to WP:AGF, too. That would be in better form, not griefing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Actually the misunderstanding is at your end, since the commenting out was done before this AfD was created. Therefore would you like to retract your accusations above that it was done to rig the AfD? WP:AGF means that I will consider that your reply was due to your misunderstanding, rather than an attempt to gaslight me. What do you mean "the article is now restored", since it wasn't deleted in the first place? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Griefing Stop it! You are wasting everyone's time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] What is that supposed to mean, the Chewbacca Defense? Dronebogus (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2022 (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.