Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagging (disambiguation)

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging (disambiguation)[edit]

original research, unverified, dicdef, and oh yeah, only links to one actual article on the topic Vicarious 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. I'm unsold on the utility here, most of the definitions are too long for a disambig page. But I'm not sure if these other definitions exist that teabagging is the best place to put the Wiktionary jump. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the word teabagging appears in Wikipedia 53 times [1]; so there is possibly a need for a disambig page - this just needs to reflect Wiki content better. SkierRMH,08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous references to teabagging imply a need for the teabagging article, not neccessarily a disambig page. Also, I skimmed through those 53 pages and didn't find one that referenced anything but the sexual act. Vicarious 08:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this is a list of dictionary definitions, not a true disambiguation page. Move to Wiktionary. Koweja 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary might not want them if they're not ... uhm ... true, which I don't believe they are. WilyD 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if they aren't true then speedy delete as patent nonsense with no need for a discussion. Koweja 15:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not patent nonsense. All of these appear to be tiny minority uses (ie. non-notable) of the term. Without verification, they don't belong on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Nick Graves 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it's properly sourced. MaxSem 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with teabagging, the "genital" example is the only one that seems sources or even notable.Baka man 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The dab page sounds like a frat prank or something. I have never heard of any of these alt defs. Without verification, delete. TonyTheTiger 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Teabagging is definitely a frat prank (and is yet notable), but the other defs seem like cruft.Baka man 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they're all neologisms. The sex act is the only one that has reached a sufficient level of common usage to be notable, and that already has an article.--Kubigula (talk) 20:42, 19 December 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.