Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outdated English slang

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 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of outdated English slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unmaintainable list. Subjective; when is something truly outdated? Finally, it has problems with verifiability per WP:V. Crystallina 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Some of that slang is still in use ("Bees knees" being but one example), making this whole mess a whole lot of WP:OR. No attributions, can't verify it, and there is no way it could ever be completed, because of the fact that, again, some of those terms really are in use. --Dennisthe2 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective criteria, not to mention incorrect on many counts. Additionally, there is no way to declare a phrase "outdated" considering it could easily come back into use. --Wafulz 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned, this is actually very incorrect. I hesitate to use the term "original research" when obviously so little has been done. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Subjective article. Unsourced. As mentioned several phrases still in infrequent usage.--ZayZayEM 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too subjective to ever be a real list, and too huge to be comprehensive. --Haemo 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced; no one can accurately define "outdated." Sr13 (T|C) 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 03:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 11:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I think that at some point it could be the start of something useful. I put this page up with an "under construction" tag in the hopes that I could make an interesting page, but it kept getting taken down, and I guess that's not how you do things on Wikipedia. The version you see here isn't what I intended; I wanted to put a lot of words from List of archaic English words and their modern equivalents that were interesting put didn't belong on the page. There are a lot of old slang words which still are not in use out there, and it would be cool to have a nice list of them somewhere. Maybe it would be original research and somewhat against WP:V, but no more so than List of words having different meanings in British and American English. In addition, one could certainly come up with sources; I found a book of 1800s slang on Gutenberg. So in short, it is a mess because I never finished it, but I think it would work in some form, maybe even on Wiktionary? Please advise Illuminatedwax 12:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy After talking with an admin, I'd like to work on this in my userspace to see if I can't improve this article. Illuminatedwax 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be wanting to write a dictionary of slang. I've explained on your talk page where the project for doing that is. Userfication is inappropriate, because the work that you want to do isn't appropriate for this project at all. Uncle G 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - unsourced, uncategorised, possible original research, but could possibly be improved to be worthy of inclusion.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Slang is subjective enough, throw "outdated" into the mix and you get a mess. Fails WP:NOT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I started counting the words I knew were not only still in use, but that I still used myself. I lost count.  RGTraynor  17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-How do you define outdated and slang? Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as I hate to be a wet blanket, I'd like to fire a rick this far too arbitrary and unsourced list.-- danntm ^T _C 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking through the list as some have said above some of the slang is still in use and I use some of the slang words regularly. Also youve problems over what each slang word means as it can vary from region to region, an example being in your list Bimbo where i live that word means a woman who goes with lots of different men for sex whereas you have a different meaning for it. --PrincessBrat 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quite... extensive.... Doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but perhaps it could be moved to a different website? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Golly gee, this list is neat-o. The major objection seems to be to the word "outdated" in the title. So change the title, and keep the classification by decades. Dictionaries have no trouble defining slang, and there are dictionaries that can provide external references for this. Fg2 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sourcing an article from dictionaries creates a dictionary. The place to create a golly gee dictionary is over there. Uncle G 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main problem I see with this article is that alot of the words on this list are STILL in use today, or at least alot of the words I am familiar with, and still hear from time to time. By the definition of the article itself, These phrases or words are no longer used, their meaning is no longer understood, or their usage causes the speaker to appear old or outdated. Since a large number of these words cannot even match this definition is why I'm voting to delete. JAMDAWG 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}[reply]
• delete unsourced--Sefringle 22:38, 13 April 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.