Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlong

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 and redirect to Human penis. After redirecting I will salt the redirect. MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Schlong

Schlong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTDIC and WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary already has this word and its etymology; usage examples can be added there. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or restore the redirect to penis (but note that this page has no incoming links). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as a dictionary definition. It's a pity we have to go the long way round via AfD for such an obvious case for a redirect (to Penis) but I see in the history that the article has been redirected several times since 2002 (!), which has always been reverted. (Most recently, today, reverted as "vandalism" by a user who presumably thought it a pity to lose his cute external link to Donald Trump's [mis]use of the word.[1]) There's probably not much use in redirecting it yet one more time. So let's delete it, and then a fresh redirect can be created, which is not as much of an invitation to edit warring. All of it because, you know, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

• Delete as a dictionary definition. (I suppose I should have copied the contents to a new section in the target article, rather than trying to restore the redirect.) Dbfirs 21:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per Bishonen — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no rule that says dictionary definitions have to be deleted! WP:NOTDIC urges editors to start with a dictionary definition and then expand it into an encyclopedia article. As far as a redirect goes, someone looking up "schlong" is not likely to be looking for the sort of medical and scientific information that you find at penis. H. Humbert (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @H. Humbert: That's quite an interpretation of the spirit of WP:NOTDIC there. So let's say we start with a dictionary definition and start to expand it. What would that look like? What is the subject of the article, keeping in mind that "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history"? Could you tell us how you would expand this article in a way that penis does not cover and which is not simply a[n elongated] definition of the word "schlong"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • LOL. Try to keep it clean, Rhododendrites. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
      • It wasn't intentional, but it was a conscious decision not to reword. It really is a shame that WP:DICDEF is the most relevant policy here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - this isn't UrbanDictionary. Blythwood (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect or merge to Schlong. Not enough sources for the subject to have its own article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the schlong article. Schlonged is already a redirect. H. Humbert (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to Human penis#Terminology. The etymology is about the only interesting thing in this article. clpo13_(talk) 08:44, 20 January 2016 (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.