Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fluffer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - kept

Currently in an edit war between two users about whether a paragraph break should be inserted in the midst of its three sentences. Wouldn't be surprised of my VfD header is erased in the next edit too. Anyway, this is nothing that couldn't be included in Pornographic movie. Garrett Albright 21:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HISTORY: Someone put a very crude version of it up a few days ago, it was CfD'd, and I objected to it on the CfD page, but not fast enough. So, in fairness — although this isn't the kind of crap I have on my own site — since the word has some currency and there is some vague use to it, I rewrote it as genteelly as I know how, but with {{Wiktionary}}. That got removed, no explanation — I don't understand what the {{Wiktionary}}procedure is — then the next thing I know, as you say, a revert duel. Careful though, Garrett: not about a paragraph break but about "Its usually a guy" or whatever the phrase was. Anyway I'm heartily fed up with it, and am not going to spend any more energy defending this article: my sense of fairness all used up; and the Haydes seems to be a notorious troll, don't want to be tarred by association. Delete. — Bill 21:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • merge into pornographic movie and redirect. Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Legitimate substub that needs cleanup. Could be an interesting article.--Tomheaton 21:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe improve and expand, if it can be done tastefully. It's a legitimate subject, as far as I can tell. It could be merged and redirected to pornographic movie, but I'm of the opinion that redirects should generally be used for things which are closer to being synonyms (unless it's part of a list). Someone would probably have to read pretty far down a somewhat lengthy article to find out what a fluffer is, and this article defines it pretty well. One could argue it's a dicdef, I suppose, but with a little work it could be an article as much as many others we have. -R. fiend 21:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Spelling, spelling! You mean dickdef, of course. — Bill 22:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll admit it, I snickered. That's no excuse, however. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:34, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if improved, otherwise delete. A potentially good article isn't enough reason to keep a near-nonsense article. andy 21:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I saw the same thing that Bill did, and I thought it was moronic. I may have even been the first speed deleter, because of that "it is usually a guy" thing. That's foolish, wrong, and worthless. Since the whole content before that line had been a substub, there was no point in saving it. Bill worked to save it. Well, it isn't usually a guy. If there is going to be an edit war over that, we're better off deleting it. Therefore, merge and redirect to prevent the noisome from having a bauble to bat around. Geogre 22:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to pornographic movie. Andrewa 23:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Edit wars are not legitimate reasons for deletion. -Sean Curtin 04:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. If someone can write a fuller article then it can always be split back out. —No-One Jones (m) 04:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Kee[. Valid topic. RickK 06:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to pornographic movie. It can't be expanded without getting graphic, so it will always be a stub otherwise. If possible, the same info should be in the Wiktionary. gK 13:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Seth Mahoney 18:53, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because the article is short doesn't mean it has to be part of the dictionary. Encyclopedia is about all-encompassing, not just major articles of interest. Otherwise it will degenerate into nothing more than mass media. Oct 13, 2004.


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.