Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puk Guy

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puk Guy[edit]

Delete - Does Wikipedia need an article for every curse word in different languages? This "term" is not even used in English, except by Chinese speakers who think that one can just form a new English phrase by writing a Chinese phrase in Latin alphabets. Anyway, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for making such kind of jokes. - Alanmak 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. --CrypticBacon 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has its place in a local culture. May possibly be renamed and expanded. — Insta ntnood 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite he may scold loudly at van Nistelrooy (the TV image) "Say Puk Guy Ruud van Nistelrooy!", which is awesome. If this was an English term, it would have all the irrelevant stuff expunged, and what would left would subsequently be dumped as a dictionary definition. That shouldn't change just because it's not in English. I see no article on 'Piss off', 'Screw you' or 'Go to hell', which would be the English language equivalents. Compare with Diu (Cantonese) (equivalent of fuck), which is encyclopaedic. Proto||type 12:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a deletionist, but this article is pseudo-encyclopedic, Cantonese-centered and simply, i dun't want to say that, stupid.--K.C. Tang 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's potential to expand and rewrite the article to make it more encyclopædic. In any case, if the decision is to delete it, it should be transwikied. — Insta ntnood 16:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insta. Deletions like this really take us in the wrong direction. There is no reason to further worsen our coverage of other cultures. -- JJay 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an overblown dictionary entry and doesn't have reliable sources. Friday (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having no reliable source included does not mean the subject matter is fake and unverifiable. — Insta ntnood 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not keep it? SchmuckyTheCat 00:33, 6 March 2006 (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.