Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Bullshit

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 keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NOTDIC. Relevent Comments can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination) ... MistyWillows ^talk 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- Comparing this article to the one mentioned by the nom is, well, bullshit (there really should be a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to go with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Just because an article is on a word, doesn't mean that it falls under WP:NOTDIC, and this one certainly doesn't. Its written from an encyclopedic standpoint, not a dictionary one. Its also reasonably sourced, and I'm sure more can be added. In short, there's no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Ok, there is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, who knew? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is irrelevent. The REASON that Red Cunt Hair was deleted equally applies here I justr didn't want to have to retype every given argument, which is as applicable here, as it is there. ... MistyWillows ^talk 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is an important enough word that it should have an article explaining it. Where else but WP could a person find this information? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary would be the obvious answer. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I take it that's a Delete, right? ... MistyWillows ^talk 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - This article is far more than a mere dictionary/wiktionary entry. It is written in an encyclopaedic style. The article needs some work, but that's no reason for deletion.The Bearded One (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment that is exactly the reasoning the people who wanted to keep Red Cunt Hair used. But the prevailing arguments, were that it was still an article about word/phrase usage. The same holds true here: Bullshit is just a word, and the article is just an article about the word usage. that is the essence of WP:NOTDIC ... MistyWillows ^talk 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - It borders on wiktionary content, but there's enough encyclopedic content to warrant it staying around. Shadowjams (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and there's definitely enough encyclopedic content on it. Timmeh! 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - this is bullshit.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes this is bullshit. This nomination reminds me of the time someone nominated garbage heap of history for deletion. Everyone knows you can't throw an object onto itself. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep bullshit. Extremely important concept, in addition to being, after hydrogen, one of the most abundant substances in the known universe. We all produce it; we all complain about it; we all need to read about it and understand it. Without this article, there would be no bullshit in Wikipedia, and that would be a sad thing, in addition to being quite impossible. Oh, it's also verifiable and reliably sourceable, and not just to bovine orifices. Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment the above three keeps fall under WP:ILIKEIT, and for the third one maybe WP:ITSFUNNY. What's bullshit, is the idea that bullshit is encyclopedic. ... MistyWillows ^talk 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- no -- read what I wrote. It's verifiable and sourceable. Look at the "Further Reading" and "References" sections, please. Antandrus (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Being verifiable and sourceable and well referenced, by itself, does not make something encyclopedic. bullshit is still just an idiom, Red cunt hair and Clusterfuck, were well referenced, verifiable and sourceable, they were deleted because they were just idioms, not encyclopedic topics. I could easily find plenty of source material to write an article about, Yay, Kiss my ass, Fucktard or even Grody. WP:NOTDIC is meaningless if you could just turn a word into an encyclopedic, just topic by having a bunch of source material to reference. ... MistyWillows ^talk 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment the above comments by the nominator mistook the intention of this editor's pithy statement. Bullshit as a word has a 100 year history within the language. I agree that the article could use a clean up, and I intend to cleanup the Bullshit article if it survives the vote. Although the following will be refuted with one of the WP:Whatevers, there exists articles on other subjects of a similar nature (FUCK) which also have wikitionary articles. Consider also that the Bullshit philosophy section could not be incorporated on the Sister Wiki. Further, the above vote stating that this was bullshit was not because it was "funnie" or "the editor likes it," but rather because the nomination was bullshit due to the various reasons already expressed here in many more words. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Covered adequately in Wiktionary. Anything useful that isn't there can be transwikied. WP:NOT#DICDEF.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. An article about "bullshitting", i.e. the activity, could possibly be encyclopedic, as this is the part that apparently has sources available, but the rest is pure dictionary definition and surely must go. The article is currently an extended dictionary entry about the word, and that doesn't belong here.--Michig (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the article, but move the Uses of "bullshit" section to wiktionary. bullshit has been the subject of significant encyclopedic work (On Bullshit for example). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - and as per Lucasbfr, move uses sction to Wiktionary. The further reading alone justifies the existence of the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any policy reasons for deletion. Per Doug et al. Other AfD doesn't seem relevant. Verbal chat

Comment How is it not relevent? The cases are nearly identical ... MistyWillows ^talk 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It's etymology, usage and synonyms - nothing but dictionary/thesaurus material. WP:DICDEF is a policy and this article blatantly fails it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article offers more than a dictionary definition. It includes literary uses and commentary on the term as used in society. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment So did the other words deleted because of WP:NOTDIC. ... MistyWillows ^talk 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't agree with the comparison. The "r-c-h-" phrase is one that I had never heard before. "Bullshit", on the other hand, is a pervasively used slang phrase in the English language. Its origins, usage, and social significance merit an article. It's more akin to Fuck you, Asshole, bitch, queer, motherfucker, cunt, pussy, fag hag, bimbo, wanker, twat, bollocks, arse, faggot, bugger, jack shit, cock tease, crank, nerd, geek, jock, beaner, gook, redneck, hillbilly, gringo, wigger, Pickaninny, wop, kike, honky, polack, redskin, shiksa, mick, chink, cracker, Jap, macaca, Limey, Mackerel Snapper, son of a gun, FUBAR, BOHICA, Newfie, Monkey hanger or other pejorative phrases. This list is offered not just as "other stuff exists, but all of these phrases have legitimate articles on Wikipedia based not only their definition but also their etymology and social significance. Let's not "cleanse" Wikipedia of words and phrases based on their potentially offensive content. Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Almost all of those articles, are just about the words, and fail WP:NOTDIC. If you want an article you their social significance, perhaps they could be merged into the artlcle Vulgarity,. And this has nothing to do with cleansing Wikipedia, I have no objection to Bullshit (game), Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, or On Bullshit, which are all legitimate articles. ... MistyWillows ^talk 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Further comment -- "just about the words". I fear that content may play a role. (If not, why are the only comparisons proffered to other "offensive" words?) The argument to merge all such articles into a single article on vulgarity defeats the purpose of a comprehensive encyclopedia. Sociolinguistics and etymology are no less important to an encyclopedia than biology. The "merge with vulgarity" logic could be used to suggest we don't need separate articles on turtle, crocodile and snake, as they could all be collapsed into a single article on reptiles. For that matter, why have articles on verb, noun and adverb, when they are "just about the words" (to borrow Misty's phrase) and fall into the broader article on parts of speech? Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite a fair comparison to make, since the examples you give (turtle, adverb, etc.) are all categories, rather than specific tokens. But in this case, you're right anyway, since this is a word that has enough stuff to be said about it that it warrants an article (as do turtles, crocodiles, and snakes). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. My specific analogy was strained, but you get the point. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A better example is the article on the word "Thou" -- a thoroughly written piece that is "just about the word." It should not be relegated to a broader article on pronouns. Some words have sufficient historical, sociological, cultural or other significance to merit an article. "Bullshit" is one of those words. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This article goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. I just added information on how the expletive played a part in a radio advertising controversy in the 1980 U.S. presidential campaign. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Yes, the article needs to be cleaned up. Yes, it focuses more on usage and definition than a Wikipedia article should. But the word itself is an encyclopedic topic and there is enough information out there to write an article about it, rather than just a dictionary definition (words can certainly be notable and can have articles written on them...for other examples, there is Lesbian, a word article that is almost an FA, as well as the usual suspects like Gay and Nigger). Need for cleanup isn't a good reason for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: needs clean up. Passes WP standards for inclusion.--It's me...Sallicio!^$\oplus$ 20:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article certainly merits inclusion. As said above, it goes beyond the realms of a dictionary definition and has plenty of social significances. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If you are in favor of deletion, please do a little soul-searching and ask yourself if your opinion of the word's usage is coloring your opinion. It is irrefutable fact that the word is spoken behind closed doors in professional office environments (such as my own). Anything less than objectivity is censorship. The dictionary argument is weakened by the nature of the article. The research and links are far more than a dictionary entry requires. A dictionary user is looking for a utilitarian working understanding of a word, but an encyclopedia user might be searching for a particular piece of information or a detailed overview, complete with history and analysis. The dictionary article lacks this in-depth information as it should. We the users may have to define this divide ourselves--between the dictionary and encyclopedia--as the digital age matures. kevinthenerd (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment The censorship argument is a motherfucking red herring, this has nothing to do with censorship, or any fucking bullshit like that.... All kidding aside: Articles about words really have no place in an encyclopedia, this is just another example of trivia, and from what i've seen here, people vote to keep trivia if they like it. Well even though I actually LIKE articles about swearwords, I have to be honest to say that they don't really belong here given WP:NOTDIC. And I think that all the people who are voting Keep need to ask themselves why they want it here. Personally I would like to see all the information in articles about words being moved to wiktionary, in their entirety, expanding the scope of wiktionary to be more than just the minimal definitions of words. ... MistyWillows ^talk 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Bullshit is not a word; rather, it is a social and linguistic practice that is named by a word, and the article goes into some depth about the nature of the social ritual named by it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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.