Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cock block (second nomination)

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slang definition. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, and there has been no significant improvement since. This has been transwikied to Wiktionary. There's nothing in this article beyond stating what cock blocking is, regardless of the number of sentences there are. WP:WINAD. Brian G. Crawford 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no encyclopaedia article here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. To address the inevitable "It's got 90,000 Google hits", ghey has 693,000, and deletion review is currently endorsing the deletion of that one by a wide margin. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same as before, viable term. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nobody has tried to improve it since last September. If someone wants to make an encyclopedic, researched, version of it, they can always do so at another time. Just because it's a word doesn't mean that it needs an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) .
• Keep - though I'd prefer that the article be renamed as something else such as Human competition for sexual attention and written in a more scientific way, with the term 'cock block' a listed synonym. - Richardcavell 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki while its a valid slang term... it doesnt deserve an article here... move to wiktionary. whoops Delete as has already been transwiki'd  ALKIVAR™ 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Read the nomination, it has already been transfered to Wiktionary. Delete as a dicdef. --Hetar 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, already transwikied. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the term is viable and notable Yuckfoo 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The term is notable. Yes, WP:WINAD, but the article is identified as a stub and stubs (at minimum) must provide definitions (and rightly so). -- backburner001 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now -- could use encyclopedic definition and more fleshing out, though --nothingxs 03:32, 12 May 2006 (EST)
• Keep

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.