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 --JForget 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam

[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a joke article; the email bit is a good cover but all it is is an excuse to list out a somewhat incomplete list of the many, many names given to the penis. The attempt to use the email spam angle might have been more convincing if there had been any attempt to provide references etc. Ros0709 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frag. Really, 'nuff said. Indiscriminate, not fit for an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schlong. It's nice to have a formal process to discuss issues such as this. Weregerbil (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete particularly since it has a spam link attached for penis enhancement pills. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compiling a reference for this type of thing could provide a useful resource for anyone interested in studying the origin and use of various slang terms. Seems like the potential educational use might warrant its existence. I mean, if there's a page about "films by gory death scene" then why not this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, the "spam link for penis enhancement pills" at the bottom is actually a link to a blog entry discussing these pills, not advertising them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.36.7.27 (talk • contribs)

In which case, it's not a reliable reference and violates WP:EL. Either way, it doesn't belong here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that, but "article Y" has an article and this is more notable than that" isn't a good reason to keep something Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... just... no. There is no way at all to keep this reliably updated or referenced, and as said before, this is not encyclopedic content and a magnet for spam. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Hersfold. It would be a magnet for vandals, too. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Circumcise. There's just no way that this is WP:V-able. Besides, I thought spam had completely turned to obfuscations like p3n!s by now. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a thesaurus for slang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, filled with original research. Looks like it could be a spam magnet Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete- there can't be much of this in WP:RS, surely? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deserves the Bobbitt treatment - Delete - Unverifiable, unsourced original research. —Travis ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, then, quite clearly, delete per WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chop it off per nom. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:NOT#IINFO and, more importantly, WP:V. The majority of entries are unsourced. If someone wants the content for another site, or wants to userfy it, then provide them with the content. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of stupid to be honest, who would really search Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Oh and before anyone asks, I added to the article because it's something I remember off Casino Royale. Jammy (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be E-X-P-A-N-D-E-D (ho ho, I'm kidding, Delete). --Canley (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BJODN it. No? Can't do that anymore? Darn. Delete. Reso lute 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it off and if it gets kept, the title should be standardized to List of euphemisms for penis in email spam. (And what happened to BJODN?) Matchups (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJODN sadly got deleted itself (it does exist here, but its not the same. BJODN was transwikied to a new wiki that's here Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a big tip cut it loose. (delete) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. KnightLago (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, there are no sources, and per this previous AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (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.