List of terms for gay in different languages – Closing admin reversed the decision; article deleted. – Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of terms for gay in different languages (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Closed as no consensus, but consensus to delete seems very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my own closure. As the admin who closed it as "no consensus", I thought it was very clear that there was none. Although there were more people saying "delete" than "keep", AFD isn't a vote, and the "keep"-ers made valid points in the discussion that were not countered by the "delete"-ers. +An gr 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete because that was the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] How do you figure that? I don't see any consensus in that discussion. +An gr 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two aspects to consider: the weight of argument and the strength of numbers. On the weight of the argument, Wikipedia isn't a foreign-language dictionary: a point well made at the AfD, and though Squidfryerchef attempted to refute it, I do not think he succeeded. On the weight of numbers, I don't see any !votes that should be disregarded as resulting from sockpuppetry or bad faith.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Numbers carry no weight at all in a consensus discussion, only the arguments. As I have said, the minority arguments were not refuted, resulting in the lack of a consensus. +An gr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Consensus" is the name we give to a collective decision-making process. The closer isn't like the monarch of a country, listening to various advisers and deciding which to disregard; they're more like the clerk at a meeting, implementing the meeting's decisions. Also, there comes a point when there are so many !votes in one direction that the closer's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" becomes hard for other people to separate from the closer's "personal opinion". (I'm not accusing you of deliberate bad faith here, even though I disagree with your close. I'm saying closers need to be aware of the perception of bad faith. A good closing statement helps dispel that perception, as well as taking the bite out of a close.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Consensus does actually mean something; it's not a Wikipedia-internal neologism that we can define as we please. And if a group has agreed to make its decisions by consensus, and not by majority rule or even supermajority rule, then the clerk in charge of implementing decisions needs to know when a decision has been made by consensus and when it was not possible to come to agreement. In this discussion, it was not possible to come to agreement. As for my personal opinion, I don't care whether the article is deleted or kept; but I do care when Wikipedia actions that require consensus (whether it's XFD, REQMOVE, FAC or anything else) are made despite the absence of a clear consensus for them, merely because one side got a majority of the votes. (And when that happens, they really are votes, not "!votes".) +An gr 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well, I can only hope that the snow overturn here will help you to understand that whatever "consensus" means, that close wasn't it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nope. If this discussion gets closed as "overturn" (snowball or otherwise), that will be against consensus too, because this discussion is another one where it seems not to be possible to come to agreement. +An gr 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] We work to rough rough consensus as laid out in the deletion guidelines for admins. Total agreement is not required, the general opinion here at the moment is that the consensus of the original debate was read incorrectly. That is the "dominant view". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have yet to see any reason sustained here that it should not be deleted, that seems overwhelming. There is no reason not to delete. Mish (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete - AfD isn't a vote...but 10-2? I can think of virtually no instance where closing such a debate as no consensus would be appropriate where no canvassing is present and all participation was in good faith. Perhaps if there was some new particularly important information regarding the subject of the deletion debate that was revealed towards the end of the debate I could see relisting, but that doesn't appear to be the case here (I don't consider the revealing that a 2005 VfD ended up in keep to be very important- consensus can change). VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Or in this case, consensus to keep can change to no consensus to delete. But consensus to delete? Not in this AFD. +An gr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 10-2 is irrelevant; even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments. A correctly conducted AFD has nothing to fear from canvassing or sockpuppetry, because judging consensus does not involve counting the number of people who wrote "keep" and the number of people who wrote "delete". The whole point of making decisions on the basis of consensus rather than majority rule is to ensure that valid minority opinions are not stampeded over by more popular opinions. +An gr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments - Yes there would, if the 100 also have valid arguments, which in this case the 10 do. You seem to be advocating the position that if an extreme minority of participants can indeed come up with a valid reason for keeping, while the large majority of participants can come up with equally valid reasons for deleting (we shall assume arguments are equally valid for purposes of this hypo), then the debate should automatically end in no consensus. If this is so, we disagree here. Consensus is necessarily derived from looking at the votes, including the number of users who support deletion vs. keeping. While we can all agree it is not a straight vote, the numbers are still a factor that the closing admin should take into account when closing. In this case I would assign great weight to the difference in numbers since it was so large and the users supporting keeping had no more persuasive of an argument than those supporting deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete this should probably be transwiki'ed to Wiktionary - filled with unsourced morsels of possible knowledge and deleted. Just beyond closer's discretion here, as WP:NOT#DICT seems to favor deletion and there was no strong rebuttal of why that shouldn't apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Transwikiing to Wiktionary isn't feasible. They already have an entry for gay which has foreign-language translations. +An gr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Question I noticed that the bot wasn't able to "transwiki" to Wikionary" as well (due to number of revisions issue). Does anyone know of an admin here that would also be an admin there that might be able to help resolve the matter? Perhaps if we could get the referenced items over to a "derogatory gay terms" (rather than the existing gay). I don't for a second question the good faith closure, but feel that the arguments supporting delete were equally as strong as the couple arguments to keep (or more to the point - port to Wikt). Perhaps if we could resolve the issue of porting the info - we could resolve the keep/delete issue here. — Ched : ? 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] See below. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist at this time, perhaps a relisting would be the best solution. (see below) — Ched : ? 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete A list of unreferenced, dictionary definitions with no notability on the encyclopaedic value of why such a list of terms is relevant. Consensus was very clear. --Step hen 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete, clear consensus. Optionally transwiki to Wiktionary, although they may not want it. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. I was not aware that this discussion had resumed. Following the deletion discussion, I removed all the derivatives of 'gay' and 'homo' (as per comments and discussion) and did the same for derivatives of 'lesbian'. I then tagged the derogatory material that was not referenced or referenced unreliably, and the following day removed that material. The items marked as neutral are now tagged, and after 24 hours they will be deleted as well. The whole article was tagged as needing citations a considerable time ago, and nobody has added anything that would verify the accuracy of these statements about terms used to describe gay people. This will effectively leave only the English words - which would involve the article needing renaming to something like 'English words used to call gay people names'. Best just delete it - the opportunity was given to relocate the material, but that was lost with the decision to keep. Mish (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The discussion didn't resume; this is a different discussion. The issue here is not whether or not the article should be deleted; the issue here is whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the AFD. I say it was not, despite the fact that 10 people !voted "delete" and only 2 people !voted "keep", because per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not in numbers", "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available", and "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." When I read through the discussion, it seemed to me that the objections of the minority who disagreed with deletion were not refuted and therefore consensus was not reached. +An gr 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most points were responded to, all that wasn't was the format... Does having a special format justify any material that is not otherwise normally within Wikipedia? The wiktionary article has much less information than this and is not in a tablulated format... Move the info across, and if Wiktionary does not support the format that is not our concern. WP may not be a dictionary but it is not uncommon for an encyclopedia to contain short specialized glossaries within articles... Yes, but this is a large glossary without any article. If moved to wiktionary the advantage of the format (directly comparing terminology tween languages) is lost... Not our problem - Wiktionary problem. The content could still be re-located there. The WP version contains literal, and often very colorful, translations, as well as the degree of whether it's a derogatory remark... This was already addressed when it was suggested it be moved. On the other hand, the absence of verifiable sources to allow checking, the most obvious and consistent objection, despite the article tagged for this three months ago. In articles that involve terms in a multitude of languages, accuracy cannot be ignored. I could put anything there as a term for gay, say 'Mickey Mouse' or the name of a national politician, but without a citation to verify this, how can anybody know what is put there is genuine? Wiktionary will have its own policies and methods of fact-checking, so the material would have been better there where specialists could have maintained and checked it. We cannot allow potentially defamatory material here, because most English-speakers will have no idea what over 90% of the words actually mean. If a national politician's name was included, and we were ignorant of that, that would not be a defense, and where non-English words are inserted into an English article in a way that their meaning cannot be checked, they should be dealt with as being a potential BLP violation. This would need to be overseen by specialists in a range of languages, yet there is no template to show it is incorporated in any such linguistic project. Mish (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am an administrator at both projects, and someone who has been transwikifying for years, and my resolution of the transwikification matter, raised above, is as follows: Transwikification is unnecessary. Wiktionary already has all of the trustable content, and the content that it doesn't have is either suspect or outright wrong. (As ever, and as already pointed out here, Wiktionary does a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does.) I've manually checked this list against the translations in the Wiktionary article for "gay", and against the Wikisaurus entries for "gay" and "male homosexual". The only sourced entry that Wiktionary does not have is "teapot", which turns out not to be supported by the source cited, and appears erroneous. Wiktionary not only has many of the unsourced entries, it has a lot of information that is not here and never was here, such as "bum chum" for example. The arguments about format are, quite simply, wrong. As can be seen, Wiktionary has a far more expansive format, that also presents information in more than one way (note the existence of both a dictionary entry and a thesaurus entry for "gay", for example). Every word and idiom not only gets a list entry, but is permitted its own fully-fledged article. So, for example, whilst this poor attempt at a slang dictionary here gives "pillow-biter" short shrift, Wiktionary not only gives it its own article, "pillow-biter", it includes in that article quotations showing the idiom in use and an etymology explaining where it came from. Moreover, you'll see that Wikisaurus' entry for "male homosexual" labels the pejorative entries. By the very nature of that entry being "male homosexual", the "used for men" information is already there too, note. In addition, whilst they have been removed here, Wiktionary has no qualms about including non-slang words that are just translations of "homosexual" (which also has a translations section, note). So, as you can see, it is happy to include in its lists the Bulgarian "хомосексуален", the Czech "homosexuální", the German and Swedish "homosexuell", the Dutch "homoseksueel", and the Esperanto "samseksema". On the point of Wiktionary doing a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does, I point to the English Wiktionary's entry for "bicha" and the Portuguese Wiktionary's entry for "veado" (interwiki linked from the 'bot-created English Wiktionary entry, by the way). Notice that they go into detail about which meanings are Brazilian Portuguese — something that this poor slang dictionary here doesn't even appear to think about. Similarly, this poor slang dictionary doesn't think about archaisms and obsolescences, but Wiktionary does. See "invert", for example. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete - The deleters have indeed addressed the concerns of the keepers in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 8 .July 2009 (UTC) Overturn. The closing did not reflect the consensus, and thus failed to follow WP:DGFA. BRMo (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hi Uncle G, thanks for a very informative response. "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." WP:NOTDIC Overturn and delete: struck my original "relist" after Uncle Gs excellent work, explanations, and assistance here. I appreciate Angrs efforts to determine consensus without regard to pure numbers, but I believe that the arguments used by the majority outweigh the arguments used by the minority. At this point, I believe the article fails "keep" per: WP:NOT at NOTDICT and item 3 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Ched : ? 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete - With respect to the closing admin, this was not an appropriate close; consensus was clearly to delete. –Juliancolton \| ^Talk 03:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. The consensus was clearly that this was a delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Since the consensus on this page is clearly that the lack of consensus at the AFD is irrelevant, I've gone ahead and deleted the article. +An gr 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of terms for gay in different languages – Closing admin reversed the decision; article deleted. – Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Closed as no consensus, but consensus to delete seems very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own closure. As the admin who closed it as "no consensus", I thought it was very clear that there was none. Although there were more people saying "delete" than "keep", AFD isn't a vote, and the "keep"-ers made valid points in the discussion that were not countered by the "delete"-ers. +An gr 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete because that was the consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you figure that? I don't see any consensus in that discussion. +Angr 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two aspects to consider: the weight of argument and the strength of numbers. On the weight of the argument, Wikipedia isn't a foreign-language dictionary: a point well made at the AfD, and though Squidfryerchef attempted to refute it, I do not think he succeeded. On the weight of numbers, I don't see any !votes that should be disregarded as resulting from sockpuppetry or bad faith.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Numbers carry no weight at all in a consensus discussion, only the arguments. As I have said, the minority arguments were not refuted, resulting in the lack of a consensus. +Angr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Consensus" is the name we give to a collective decision-making process. The closer isn't like the monarch of a country, listening to various advisers and deciding which to disregard; they're more like the clerk at a meeting, implementing the meeting's decisions.
        Also, there comes a point when there are so many !votes in one direction that the closer's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" becomes hard for other people to separate from the closer's "personal opinion". (I'm not accusing you of deliberate bad faith here, even though I disagree with your close. I'm saying closers need to be aware of the perception of bad faith. A good closing statement helps dispel that perception, as well as taking the bite out of a close.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus does actually mean something; it's not a Wikipedia-internal neologism that we can define as we please. And if a group has agreed to make its decisions by consensus, and not by majority rule or even supermajority rule, then the clerk in charge of implementing decisions needs to know when a decision has been made by consensus and when it was not possible to come to agreement. In this discussion, it was not possible to come to agreement. As for my personal opinion, I don't care whether the article is deleted or kept; but I do care when Wikipedia actions that require consensus (whether it's XFD, REQMOVE, FAC or anything else) are made despite the absence of a clear consensus for them, merely because one side got a majority of the votes. (And when that happens, they really are votes, not "!votes".) +An gr 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I can only hope that the snow overturn here will help you to understand that whatever "consensus" means, that close wasn't it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. If this discussion gets closed as "overturn" (snowball or otherwise), that will be against consensus too, because this discussion is another one where it seems not to be possible to come to agreement. +An gr 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We work to rough rough consensus as laid out in the deletion guidelines for admins. Total agreement is not required, the general opinion here at the moment is that the consensus of the original debate was read incorrectly. That is the "dominant view". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have yet to see any reason sustained here that it should not be deleted, that seems overwhelming. There is no reason not to delete. Mish (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - AfD isn't a vote...but 10-2? I can think of virtually no instance where closing such a debate as no consensus would be appropriate where no canvassing is present and all participation was in good faith. Perhaps if there was some new particularly important information regarding the subject of the deletion debate that was revealed towards the end of the debate I could see relisting, but that doesn't appear to be the case here (I don't consider the revealing that a 2005 VfD ended up in keep to be very important- consensus can change). VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in this case, consensus to keep can change to no consensus to delete. But consensus to delete? Not in this AFD. +An gr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 10-2 is irrelevant; even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments. A correctly conducted AFD has nothing to fear from canvassing or sockpuppetry, because judging consensus does not involve counting the number of people who wrote "keep" and the number of people who wrote "delete". The whole point of making decisions on the basis of consensus rather than majority rule is to ensure that valid minority opinions are not stampeded over by more popular opinions. +Angr 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - even if it were 100-2 there would be no consensus if the 2 dissenters have valid arguments - Yes there would, if the 100 also have valid arguments, which in this case the 10 do. You seem to be advocating the position that if an extreme minority of participants can indeed come up with a valid reason for keeping, while the large majority of participants can come up with equally valid reasons for deleting (we shall assume arguments are equally valid for purposes of this hypo), then the debate should automatically end in no consensus. If this is so, we disagree here. Consensus is necessarily derived from looking at the votes, including the number of users who support deletion vs. keeping. While we can all agree it is not a straight vote, the numbers are still a factor that the closing admin should take into account when closing. In this case I would assign great weight to the difference in numbers since it was so large and the users supporting keeping had no more persuasive of an argument than those supporting deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete this should probably be transwiki'ed to Wiktionary - filled with unsourced morsels of possible knowledge and deleted. Just beyond closer's discretion here, as WP:NOT#DICT seems to favor deletion and there was no strong rebuttal of why that shouldn't apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwikiing to Wiktionary isn't feasible. They already have an entry for gay which has foreign-language translations. +An gr 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I noticed that the bot wasn't able to "transwiki" to Wikionary" as well (due to number of revisions issue). Does anyone know of an admin here that would also be an admin there that might be able to help resolve the matter? Perhaps if we could get the referenced items over to a "derogatory gay terms" (rather than the existing gay). I don't for a second question the good faith closure, but feel that the arguments supporting delete were equally as strong as the couple arguments to keep (or more to the point - port to Wikt). Perhaps if we could resolve the issue of porting the info - we could resolve the keep/delete issue here. — Ched : ? 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at this time, perhaps a relisting would be the best solution. (see below) — Ched : ? 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete A list of unreferenced, dictionary definitions with no notability on the encyclopaedic value of why such a list of terms is relevant. Consensus was very clear. --Step hen 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, clear consensus. Optionally transwiki to Wiktionary, although they may not want it. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I was not aware that this discussion had resumed. Following the deletion discussion, I removed all the derivatives of 'gay' and 'homo' (as per comments and discussion) and did the same for derivatives of 'lesbian'. I then tagged the derogatory material that was not referenced or referenced unreliably, and the following day removed that material. The items marked as neutral are now tagged, and after 24 hours they will be deleted as well. The whole article was tagged as needing citations a considerable time ago, and nobody has added anything that would verify the accuracy of these statements about terms used to describe gay people. This will effectively leave only the English words - which would involve the article needing renaming to something like 'English words used to call gay people names'. Best just delete it - the opportunity was given to relocate the material, but that was lost with the decision to keep. Mish (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion didn't resume; this is a different discussion. The issue here is not whether or not the article should be deleted; the issue here is whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the AFD. I say it was not, despite the fact that 10 people !voted "delete" and only 2 people !voted "keep", because per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not in numbers", "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available", and "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." When I read through the discussion, it seemed to me that the objections of the minority who disagreed with deletion were not refuted and therefore consensus was not reached. +An gr 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most points were responded to, all that wasn't was the format... Does having a special format justify any material that is not otherwise normally within Wikipedia?
The wiktionary article has much less information than this and is not in a tablulated format... Move the info across, and if Wiktionary does not support the format that is not our concern.
WP may not be a dictionary but it is not uncommon for an encyclopedia to contain short specialized glossaries within articles... Yes, but this is a large glossary without any article.
If moved to wiktionary the advantage of the format (directly comparing terminology tween languages) is lost... Not our problem - Wiktionary problem. The content could still be re-located there.
The WP version contains literal, and often very colorful, translations, as well as the degree of whether it's a derogatory remark... This was already addressed when it was suggested it be moved.
On the other hand, the absence of verifiable sources to allow checking, the most obvious and consistent objection, despite the article tagged for this three months ago. In articles that involve terms in a multitude of languages, accuracy cannot be ignored. I could put anything there as a term for gay, say 'Mickey Mouse' or the name of a national politician, but without a citation to verify this, how can anybody know what is put there is genuine? Wiktionary will have its own policies and methods of fact-checking, so the material would have been better there where specialists could have maintained and checked it. We cannot allow potentially defamatory material here, because most English-speakers will have no idea what over 90% of the words actually mean. If a national politician's name was included, and we were ignorant of that, that would not be a defense, and where non-English words are inserted into an English article in a way that their meaning cannot be checked, they should be dealt with as being a potential BLP violation. This would need to be overseen by specialists in a range of languages, yet there is no template to show it is incorporated in any such linguistic project. Mish (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator at both projects, and someone who has been transwikifying for years, and my resolution of the transwikification matter, raised above, is as follows: Transwikification is unnecessary. Wiktionary already has all of the trustable content, and the content that it doesn't have is either suspect or outright wrong. (As ever, and as already pointed out here, Wiktionary does a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does.)
I've manually checked this list against the translations in the Wiktionary article for "gay", and against the Wikisaurus entries for "gay" and "male homosexual". The only sourced entry that Wiktionary does not have is "teapot", which turns out not to be supported by the source cited, and appears erroneous. Wiktionary not only has many of the unsourced entries, it has a lot of information that is not here and never was here, such as "bum chum" for example.
The arguments about format are, quite simply, wrong. As can be seen, Wiktionary has a far more expansive format, that also presents information in more than one way (note the existence of both a dictionary entry and a thesaurus entry for "gay", for example). Every word and idiom not only gets a list entry, but is permitted its own fully-fledged article. So, for example, whilst this poor attempt at a slang dictionary here gives "pillow-biter" short shrift, Wiktionary not only gives it its own article, "pillow-biter", it includes in that article quotations showing the idiom in use and an etymology explaining where it came from. Moreover, you'll see that Wikisaurus' entry for "male homosexual" labels the pejorative entries. By the very nature of that entry being "male homosexual", the "used for men" information is already there too, note.
In addition, whilst they have been removed here, Wiktionary has no qualms about including non-slang words that are just translations of "homosexual" (which also has a translations section, note). So, as you can see, it is happy to include in its lists the Bulgarian "хомосексуален", the Czech "homosexuální", the German and Swedish "homosexuell", the Dutch "homoseksueel", and the Esperanto "samseksema".
On the point of Wiktionary doing a far better job of being a dictionary than Wikipedia does, I point to the English Wiktionary's entry for "bicha" and the Portuguese Wiktionary's entry for "veado" (interwiki linked from the 'bot-created English Wiktionary entry, by the way). Notice that they go into detail about which meanings are Brazilian Portuguese — something that this poor slang dictionary here doesn't even appear to think about. Similarly, this poor slang dictionary doesn't think about archaisms and obsolescences, but Wiktionary does. See "invert", for example. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - The deleters have indeed addressed the concerns of the keepers in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 8 .July 2009 (UTC)
Overturn. The closing did not reflect the consensus, and thus failed to follow WP:DGFA. BRMo (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G, thanks for a very informative response. "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." WP:NOTDIC

Overturn and delete: struck my original "relist" after Uncle Gs excellent work, explanations, and assistance here. I appreciate Angrs efforts to determine consensus without regard to pure numbers, but I believe that the arguments used by the majority outweigh the arguments used by the minority. At this point, I believe the article fails "keep" per: WP:NOT at NOTDICT and item 3 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Ched : ? 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete - With respect to the closing admin, this was not an appropriate close; consensus was clearly to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The consensus was clearly that this was a delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus on this page is clearly that the lack of consensus at the AFD is irrelevant, I've gone ahead and deleted the article. +An gr 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.