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 Speedy Keep. The response has been unanimous. I don't think this has any chance of reaching any consensus besides keep -- Samuel Wantman 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy girl[edit]

Juicy girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Article asserts notability and provides sources, it could stand improvement but article quality is not a reason for deletion. Sources provided speak to notability and verifability, not a neologism. Wintermut3 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Before nominating an AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep given that nomination is either in bad faith or at least the criteria given are clearly false. It just boggles my mind that WP:WINAD is given as a reason for deletion here when the page clearly includes material that goes beyond a definition. --Jackhorkheimer 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\^talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.

He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:

• Bar Girl Love (also see its root URL at [1]) - violates Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is an anonymously written "reader submission" (see here) and cannot be used per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.

• description of a bar girl - an Internet Forum per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet "should not be used as sources" and fails [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources] because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"!

• "Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'" - a BBC article that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus Synthesis. However, the article would be a great source in Trafficking in human beings.

• South Korea Pages by ClarkRB - A bulletin board post that clearly falls under WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet that "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

CyberAnth 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel those external links are inappropriate, a better course of action would have been any of these (a) add better ones (b) discuss them on the talk page (c) prune the links you think are inappropriate. Johntex\^talk 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I "feel"' they are??? They blatantly violate WP policies. The point is your clearly erroneous and perhaps partisan and bad faith vote on this matter. If I prune the links, then the article will have no references--references you thought (or at least voted as if) were good. CyberAnth 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you provide evidence to back your inference that comments here may be in bad faith. BTW, I added two more verifiable, reliable sources to the article just now. Johntex\^talk 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Girl Love is a blatantly un-allowable. I request admins to know when sources they add to articles are not allowable per WP policies. I have not looked at the other two yet. CyberAnth 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with me? I didn't add that link. Johntex\^talk 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, admins do not, as a rule, insert themselves into content disputes. Also, the trouble with arguing bad faith is that what we're all supposed to be doing is assuming good faith. It makes it hard for me to assume the assumption of good faith on your part when you're describing another editor's contribution as bad faith. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - all of the concerns voiced by nom have been addressed (and a few typos fixed). SkierRMH 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diff in the article between my nom and your making the above completely bogus statement is here. You fixed a few typos. Johntex added one ref, Bar Girl Love, which I already have shown above to be a non-usable ref in WP. So how this tabulates to "all of the concerns voiced by nom have been addressed" is utterly beyond me. CyberAnth 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, do I need to spell it out concern by concern:

*WP:WINAD clearly this is more than a simple dictionary definition.

*WP:N & WP:V & WP:OR - references have been added, and since your comment Johntex appears to have cited two more.

*WP:NEO Use by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Navy Times, & that little news agency, the BBC - don't think it is quite a neologism.

*And finally, all I admitted to doing is fixing a few typos! SkierRMH 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You are mistaken. The diff you provide shows I added two refs. One in-line, one not in-line. Also, the BBC article is relevant. The two sources I added make clear that the term "juicy girl" is associated with human trafficking to brothels. The BBC article discusses human traffic to brothels. The BBC article does not need to mention the term "juicy girls". All that matters is that it is relevant to the content. Johntex\^talk 10:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here are two more references: UNITED STATES, Appellee V. Shannon R. BULLMAN, Captain, U.S. Air Force, Appellant and Sex slaves * How women are lured into South Korea's flesh trade * How top U.S. commanders turn a blind eye even as troops are the racket's best customers - Navy Times Johntex\^talk 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. (And yes, I am cutting and pasting this; if it's good enough for the nom, it's good enough for me.) --Charlene 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
• Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. We are not a children's encyclopedia, WP:NOT censorship for minors. Terence Ong 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [2] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom has previously denied that motivation at AN/I. In good faith, I believe it, though the choice of noms raised the same questions in my mind. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:POINT, WP:SNOW, and administrators' noticeboard discussion of this spate of noms. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. If I were an admin, i'd do it, but for now. Somebody go get one here. Just H 22:13, 6 January 2007 (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.