Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slut

Fails WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article only talks about etymology of the word. This particular AFD was recommended at the AFD#2 for Hussy. KelleyCook (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references and history that demonstrate it is more than a dicdef. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This sort of detail should be in Wiktionary. I see nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than in a dictionary, at least in an online dictionary that has room for such detail.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Redirect per Mandsford's suggestion below.--Michig (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the dab page. It's worth noting that Slut (disambiguation) solves the recurring problem of Wiktionary not being directly accessible from the navigation-interaction-toolbox on the side. Click on that article, and it has a link to the Wiktionary article. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prostitution While I don't mean to sound demaning towards women in any way, it makes sense. Or you could Delete it all together. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A slut is not a prostitute - she is a promiscuous woman who tends to give it away. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article does suggests there could be social meanings and points of encyclopedic note that "Hussy" did not have, but as written it does read like a DICDEF per nom and per Michig, and delete/redirect (without prejudice) would be appropriate. It would need good quality evidence this is more than a DICDEF to avoid deletion/redirection; if evidence were provided then keeping could be appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term has substantial cultural importance. Everyking (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not just a definition, but a legitimate article about something. You have far more valid content here, than you would have in the wiktionary, which by the way almost no one ever uses, and most don't even notice exist. Dream Focus 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido (slang) was a similar AfD where i never !voted, but simply added a slew of sources. Its more than a dicdef.--Milowent (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has great notability being covered at length in several substantial books and papers such as Slut!: growing up female with a bad reputation‎, Fast girls: teenage tribes and the myth of the slut‎ and Why a'Slut'is a'Slut': Cautionary Tales of Middle Class Teenage Girls. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (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.