Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asshole (2nd nomination)

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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. This article is all about a word, not the topic denoted by the word, and so fails WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there any way to adjust the AFD history list to remove the unconnected AFDs relating to the song, the clothing line and the rap group? 23skidoo (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Anus - this article is simply a semantic fork of Anus --T-rex 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep A redirect to Anus would be a mistake. since this is not just an alternate word for anus, but a well known term of insult. There are 34 Google book hits [1] with "Asshole" in the title, few of them about the body part, indicating that sources exist to improve the article. A Google news search shows it turning up in press articles by 1965 [2] with the derogatory meaning. By 1974 President Nixon was referring to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau as "That asshole" [3] in the Watergate tapes. The degree to which its use is disorderly conduct or assault has been the subjecty of many court cases [4] , [5] , [6]. A national magazine by 1988 was in the federal courts for calling someone "Asshole of the month [7]." There are sources to allow creating an article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. As to deleting it because it is offensive, Wikipedia is not censored, and has articles about many other offensive words, which have survived AFD. Edison (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some interesting material there but the putative topic is still unclear. In your view, which of the following is the topic?

the varied usage and history of the word
the body part
unpleasant people
pop cultural allusions
words derived from ass

The latter is how the OED treats it - just as one of several formations from ass, like ass-kisser and ass-licker. I still think we're better served by proper articles on each of these topics, such as Sycophancy and Malice. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for existence of this article is the insult/allusion to disagreeable people, popular over the past 40 to 50 years. The article can certainly mention the anatomical meaning and link to Anus, but there is more to Asshole than anus. Edison (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. evidentially Wikipedia worthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable slang whose article has appropriate sources, and does not have only pronunciation, etymology and meaning. List of English words containing Q not followed by U is a Wikipedia list about English words , which was once nominated for deletion since the nominator had thought it violated WP:NOT but gained no consensus and finally kept later became a featured list. Hope everyone would know the true spirit of WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom features tortured logic: the "topic denoted by the word" can be found in another article that's more suitable for discussion of anatomical details, the topic of the word as used in society (which has a distinctly different pattern of use than "anus") has been dealt with in reliable sources, and discussed in this article beyond a dictionary definition. Here's a few offerings for expansion of sources based on two minutes of Googlin'...[8][9][10] Considering the wide usage of the term, it appears to be a relevant topic for Wikipedia, particularly the legal history of the word. — Scientizzle 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also widely expand. There is so much to say on the topic. DollyD (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is an expandable and sourceable subject. I've added a section of notable recent usages in politics, although some additional historical context would be appropriate. Sections of original research should be excised.--HidariMigi (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (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.