Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choad (2)

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page has been deleted and recreated and redirected and... anyway, I found one reliable source, and took out what was unsourced. Perhaps we can get a fresh consensus on whehther this page is worth keeping, now that it's cleaned up. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a dictionary definition that already has content in Wiktionary.--Xnuala (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xnuala. I would call it a dickdef as other users said in the previous discussions... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Slang dicdef with a wikitionary entry and no potential for further expansion. Seed 2.0 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Would it be appropriate to redirect the page to taint (slang) or to penis? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be necessary, as choad seems to have multiple meanings. Redirecting it would endorse only one of the potential meanings.--Xnuala (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Its a dicdef or, in this case, a dickdef. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dictionary definition that lacks encyclopedic value. Leftus 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Constant target of vandalism with no redeeming encyclopedic value. ➪HiDrNick! 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. I originally prodded this one but it kept getting vandalized and trashed and finally moved here which is probably best. In the first place, there is really no way to source the definition. Secondly, if there is a character named Choad then the search should go straight there. JodyB _talk 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No way to source the definition? I sourced it! Random House is a reputable publisher, and they ran it as their "Maven's Word of the Day" or something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and we probably should protect any subsequent redirect page. Abusive slang. --Fire Star 火星 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best a dictionary defintion for a slang dictionary. No sources so unverifiable Gwernol 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this not a reliable source? I don't think it necessarily estabishes notability, but doesn't it pass the "WP:RS" test? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, GT, you have a reliable source for one definition. Mavis points to the wide speculative usage of the word. It does fail WP:N and we probably should have a look at WP:NOT#DICT. Maybe one could argue that a disambig. page is warranted but inasmuch as the word definition is not within the notability guidelines and since we are not a dictionary here and to top it off, it is a constant pain to keep the vandalism off, I stand on my !vote to delete & salt. JodyB _talk 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That all seems fine; I was just confused why people are saying "no source", because I removed all the unsourced material. I can see the argument for salting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:57, 20 May 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.