Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expletive infixation

Add links
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 was keep. Joke nomination. WjBscribe 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expletive infixation

[edit]
Expletive infixation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

De-fucking-lete this non-fucking-notable ar-test-icle. It's hi-fucking-larious that the au-damn-thors think that this in-fuck-sation is so frequently used. ElbridgeGerry t c block 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JSTOR has refs to this but I don't have access. If I ever come across something like this that is article-worthy I pray I have the self-control and patience to submit it on April 1! --killing sparrows 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I never heard of this inco-fucking-herent crap. --Ineffable3000 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously a notable linguistic topic, and it doesn't even mention this hilarious thing, that is linked to from our fuck article. J Milburn 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and in this case, I'm pulling out WP:IAR - there's not very much documentation to hold it up against WP:N or WP:RS, but it's out there enough. First, there is little documentation on this (or, really, any) coloquialism phenom, and most of what's out there is...well, pretty much through word of mouth. The closest you'll get to documentation is, say, a Stephen King novel, for the simple reason that King's books just kind of come out that way. Second, the only really good way to document this is to provide a list of examples with an explanation of the concept - and at the time of my !vote here, that's pretty much what the article does. The side effect is that we hedge on being a primary resource - a little dangerous considering the nature of Wikipedia, but still. --Dennisthe2 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huff. No, keep. No, delete. No, save. Oh, what-fucking-ever, maybe we should delete Jimbo Wales instead? (oh wait, that was a speedy keep...) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the arguments against this article... wait a minute... there are none! Every "delete" vote is merely making fun of the article and/or calling it "ridiculous." Last time I checked the AfD is meant for discussion and arguments for deletion, not mocking the articles at hand. Now, there have been many articles (both newspaper and scholarly) written about the subject, so it easily fulfills both WP:N and WP:RS (see this article in the Toronto Star: [1] and then add that to the already numerous mentions in JSTOR and Google Scholar). Needless to say, I would hope for a more mature discussion in an AfD, especially about a linguistic phenomenon that is both notable and serious. Rockstar915 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comment This was an April Fool's nomi-fucking-ation. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh sh-shit-it. I totally forgot it was April fucking fools. My bad. :) Rockstar915 20:18, 1 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Expletive_infixation&oldid=1071353604"