Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aw, man!

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. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, man![edit]

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

This recently-created article offers a definition of the expression, along with some vague description of usage. It was prodded by User:RadioFan with the concern, "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources." I seconded that prod, noting, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a usage guide."

User:Pômgut contested the prod without an edit summary. Note Pômgut's comments at Talk:Aw, man!, however, under the heading "How To Improve".

The interjection aw is already included at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a slang dictionary. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDIC as well as WP:NEO both say this should go. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Baron's reasons. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant put it any better than the good Baron RadioFan (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1. I think we can all agree slang does not belong in an encyclopedia. 2. This must have found its way into popular culture after being made up one day 3. It is almost definitely original research. See WP:FORUM. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe appropriate for Wiktionary if redone, but not Wikipedia. –Grondemar 23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because WP is not a dictionary. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's no neologism; it ought to be possible to document it going back at least thirty years — if Wikipedia were a dictionary. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 24 February 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.