Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish profanity (3rd 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 was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is an article about Spanish Profanity that has had multiple issues for three years really need to be here? Lucasoutloud (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are also profanity articles for a number of languages see Category:Profanity by language. Mattg82 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass the general notability standards. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What evidence do you present that this list does not meet our notability guideline WP:NOTESAL? given the sources in the article and the additional sources mentioned below?
• Keep The article's issues do not warrant deletion because the topic is notable, as demonstrated by its sources. Warden (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator cites the tags at the top as reasons for deletion, but there are sources on the page, and they are reliable. There are even sources that haven't been incorporated yet, such as this book. The concept is notable because several books have been written on the subject and because it is discussed in other literature such as in its use in classrooms and in poetry. AfD is not for cleaning up the article. There are problems with the article, but deletion is not the solution here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nom provides no valid rationale for deletion. Why should this article be deleted? --Mike Cline (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jethro. The concept is notable. The article is clearly a wreck, but deletion isn't the answer. JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but overhaul. The subject itself is notable; it's the current content that is full of things that should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article's current content does need to be decimated, especially those parts appear to be merely dictionary-like claims with non-WP:RS sources or no citations at all. This needs Wikipedia:Be bold, rather than the title itself being deleted. --Closeapple (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: The nom has failed to advance a valid argument for deletion ... or indeed much of any "argument" at all. Whether an article has "multiple issues" or not is a content dispute properly addressed on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 06:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of encyclopedic material here. And no amount of time having maintenance tags on a worthy article is enough to warrant deletion. -- œ^™ 09:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources in the article and:

• Munier, Alexis; Martinez, Laura (2008). Talk dirty Spanish. Adams Media; Newton Abbot. ISBN 9781598697681

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: per Ravenswing, particularly. Not that it's 100% germane, but there are also Wiki articles about profanity in Quebec French, Russian, and Esperanto, none of which have delete noms. --Seduisant (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the need for editing is not the need for delete, unless it's so bad as to require blowing up and starting over. I don't see that, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Based on past precedent, TNT requires a very high standards of proof. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously notable topic. Just becuase the article sucks doesn't mean it should be deleted, it just needs to be improved. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
• I can't judge the accuracy of the content of this page, but do not believe it should be deleted just because it deals with profanity. This sort of information can be very valuable to people learning foreign languages. If it's accurate, we should keep it. I don't see any comments challenging the content per se.

BarrCatherine (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Catherine Barr[reply]

• Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Purge unreferenced entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is clearly a topic that an encyclopedic should have in it. If people want to learn what something means, or see how commonly used profanity is different in different languages, this would be of use to them. Wikipedia is about learning. Dream Focus 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basic and standard topic, as for other languages. There are a great many possible sources, and I wouldn't start removing entries unless checked. There is no deadline on improvements. Too many articles are being nominated here as "no improvement in X years". That's never a reason for deletion--the people nominating them would do much better to try improving them; if they try properly, and find it can not be done , then that can be a reason for deletion--depending on what the problem is. As everything here except an FA and GA could justify at least one improvement tag, --and always will, because every article here is becoming or will soon become outdated at least a little, such a criterion could remove 95% of the encyclopedia , This article was kept in 2005, and in 2007, both by very clear consensus, and I thing we might regard further nominations as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 17 November 2011 (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.