Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badonkadonk

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 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badonkadonk

Badonkadonk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:NEO in every respect. Unattributable, unsalvageably unencyclopedic. One line entry followed by trivia, etc. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deletealete. It is a fairly common term, popularized by Honky Tonk Badonkadonk among other things -- and the first source is decent at least. Other than that I'm pretty sure that it won't be easily expanded beyond a dicdef and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This type of content is more valuable at the Urban Dictionary, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. So what's the story with all these: Category:Slang expressions and Category:Sexual slang? --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I knew that I would get this answer and I wish to respond to that. That term is used as if it's Wikipedia policy. It isn't. The top of the page explicetly states: This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. This page may contain advice or opinions, but editors are not obliged to follow any suggestions it may contain. Moreover, even if the "rule" were to be followed, the "rule" explicetly states: Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this. --Brewcrewer (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think in some of those cases, the slang words are in such common use that they are just more notable. Hip hop slang has a tenancy to create a word one week and forget it ever existed the next; but when I hear Badonkadonk as much and as long as I have Bling-bling, then I think there might be grounds for inclusion. But until then, delete this article, and in the mean time, there's no need to give the deletionists any ideas about where to find deletion candidates. ;) --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The existence of a category for sexual slang is not an invitation to create articles for every sexual slang term in existence, just as the existence of a category for rock bands is to create one for every rock band everyone has ever started in a garage. The deletion of one article about a sexual slang term is neither an argument for deleting all sexual slang from Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The article does reference its wide acceptance and usage. --Brewcrewer (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Non notable neo. And other stuff does exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, NN slang. Even if there are articles that use the term like the song, it need only be explained in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic neologism Doc Strange (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article only states situations where people were forced to explain its meaning, thereby landing a fatal blow to this neologism's claim to notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang guide, it seems unlikely that the article can be expanded beyond a definition. [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (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.