Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slapper

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. Perhaps a common term, but the article is essentially a dictionary definition with no references.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slapper

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

This page was originally marked as a dab page, but the information on there wasn't appropriate for a dab page. Most of the info should go/already is on wikt:slapper; the rest sounds like original research or juvenile. IMO this page shouldn't exist (any longer). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Additional Comment - If I'm correct, wiktionary is the place for (slang) definitions, not wikipedia. And that's where the page's weakest spot is at the moment, besides the lack of references, if there are any. If you take away the definitions and delete the unencyclopedic sentences, that page would be rather empty and might as well get deleted and/or be redirected.– sgeureka ^t•c 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment improve and keep. Normally I'd leap to the defence of any british slang term under attack, but the article for this one really is awful and perhaps it would be better off being deleted. That said it's been establishwed by afds like the the one for Wanker that the derivation, usage and cultural context of such terms can make for an encycolpedia article. What's really going to save it is finding some decent references, which I know from previous experience can be troublesome for this kind of article. Once we have that I would suggets cutting it back to the bare boines of what can be referenced and letting it grow from there. Artw 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weirdly enough this summary of an ofcom complaint (scroll down to "stupid") is the best discussions of the usage and relative offensiveness of the term I can find from an 'official' source. Changing to keep. Artw 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - although it looks like a neologism per WP:NEO, it is in fairly widespread use in the UK. However, the assertions need to be sourced to external independent sources per WP:ATT, especially the speculative section on the origin of the term. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - common slang in UK, just needs some better references added. --J2thawiki 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*Transwiki anything useful to Wikitionary

• Delete Nothing useful that Wiktionary doesn't have. The etymology attempted just doesn't cut it. Suriel1981 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak Keep--The etymology not only just doesn't cut it, but three totally different etymologies are given. But unclear derivation is not unusual for slang terms. The article on "Fat Stags" seems much more informative about the actual usage; The existence of other such comedies is asserted--if others could be added it would certainly be notable, and evenas is it is just notable enough. DGG 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article, nor can it be made into one. Use wiktionary for entries on words. Recury 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of articles on words. Including similar common slang such as Slag (slang) --J2thawiki 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it does, and most of them should be deleted. Recury 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wanker, and the deletion debates thereof.

Weirdly this line of argument about an article on a slang term not being worthly of Wikipedia and being relegated to wiktionary only seems to come up when it's not American slang. Artw 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm British, have used the term "slapper" a lot (I live in Plymouth you see) but am very unconvinced this article should stay. Wanker is a much better article than this and the fact of its existance is not necessarily a reason to keep this article. I would say the onus is on opposers of the AFD to expand the article and reference or at least demonstrate that it could be done. Suriel1981 17:25, 2 April 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.