Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go'way

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go'way[edit]

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a possibly WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Contested prod. Tim Song (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I declined an A7 speedy deletion request as incorrect and added the prod tag. The nom pretty much says it - it is a totally unreferenced dictionary-type definition of a non-notable idiomatic expression. I'll add that the original version contained potentially defamatory material which I have deleted. LadyofShalott 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should definitely Go away. Every dialect has its fun ways of pronouncing things (in my part of the world, it's "Ahmoan" for "I am going", as in "Ahmoan down to the store"). But that doesn't mean that there should be an entire article called Ahmoan. This one is kind of dumb anyway-- so "Go 'way" is slang for "go away"? How imaginative. Maybe someone can translate the word goin' for me, I can't figure that one out. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable slang word. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I nominated it it says the word was coined by a redlinked name. Perhaps it's not WP:NEO or WP:NFT, but certainly still totally non-notable. Tim Song (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was meant as an insult to some associate of the author. See the original version of the article. LadyofShalott 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get outta here. Pure crap. No notability established. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a reasonably well-known regional idiomatic slang, but not really notable, and probably can not be expanded to much more per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copying the author's comment on the article's talk page here in the interest of fairness:

“

I would like to change the title pf this page to go w'eey, as this is the preferred spelling, This can be found on the urban dictionary, an acceptable source for use of slang words. It is a commonly used phrase in certain parts of England. Unlikely to be in dictionarys as it is slang and an abbreiviation, but this does not make it invalid!

”

Tim Song (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Delete - would need to know the actual proportion of users, but would make the argument that this is not urban dictionary. Perhaps if we can find citations etc. that this is in popular usage then it may be notable enough, with a significant rewrite to the page.

[[1]] it is here on the urban dictionary implying surely it is well known, or in use. I have heard it all over in the north, and maybe other abbriviations etc. should have their own page or at least be mentioned on the page based on the full word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermann Von Salza (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else has pointed out, you originally said that the word was coined by an acquaintance of yours, whom you compared to a "fool". It's better that this article, including its earlier drafts, be erased. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no article for go away, so we definitely shouldn't have this article. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete how is this now speedy deletion it is zero content patent nonsense urban dictonary non notable slang. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead there should be a page for go away along with abbreviations and slang. This would resolve the matter giving it some credibility.

Actually, I think you're on to something there. We have an article for parting phrase (which encompasses things such as "so long", "farewell", "auf wiedersehen", "good bye", etc.). I don't know what linguists call an expression like "Go away", "get lost", "f*** off", etc. The proper term isn't "dismissive phrase", since that also is used to describe condescension, sarcasm, and indifference. I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this, since we don't have an article for whatever one calls a command to depart. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal is the term that comes to mind, but nothing listed in that disambiguation page fits. LadyofShalott 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context I associate with this remark is disbelief rather than dismissal. I equate it with statements like 'Yeah, right...'. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever it was said coined it, no, he didn't. It has been in use for some time - but that doesn't mean that such an easy to understand expression needs an article. The spelling used is merely a reflection of north east England pronunciation. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this version of Hermann Von Salza's user page, I'd like to hear a good reason the article shouldn't be speedily deleted right now as vandalism (G3) and the user indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. LadyofShalott 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Striking that... LadyofShalott 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one good reason, and that's his statements on his own user page were obviously intended as humor. The essence of the joke is that he wrote one thing, and then crossed through parts of it, yet still leaving them visible. It's kind of like writing "Wikipedia is ~~eggsjordinary~~ ~~extronary~~ ~~extrordinerry~~ good." in order to pretend that I couldn't spell "extraordinary" and gave up. Bear in mind that a real vandal never announces, in advance, an intent to be a vandal. In fact, by doing so, Mr. Von Salza has actually invited someone to keep an eye on him. For the benefit of anyone who might not already be aware of this, Wikipedia is designed so that anyone's contributions can be monitored, simply by typing anyone's user name into the box that says "Search for contributions"; and any edit to an article can be traced to its source simply by clicking on the article history. Nobody-- Mr. Von Salza, me, you-- can get away with anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, how long before the final decision on the article is made. It ought to be kept and improved, or at least merged with another article to do with partings. This is not vandalism and as dictionarys aren't designed for slangs it ought to be here, not the wiktionary.--Hermann Von Salza 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

These discussions typically last seven days beginning with the original nomination. LadyofShalott 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday then, ought to stay on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermann Von Salza (talk • contribs)

Can I just make a point that I did not put the lines through Lady Of ~~Onions~~ shallotts comment about my article. I know this may appear as my style of comedy or an attempt at a humourous form of censorship, bit it wasn't me.--Hermann Von Salza 10:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I struck those comments, and noted that I did so (see addition right at the end where I said "striking that"). You are under no suspicion. LadyofShalott 15:41, 24 November 2009 (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.