Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of a bitch

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 of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a bitch

More appropriate for wiktionary and a neologism to boot. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and imrove, it cane certainly become more than a dicdef. Widespread "neologisms" (created during the early-mid 20th century?) are notable. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:35 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are dozens of articles on wikipedia for all manner of swear word/phrases albeit this one could do with some improvment. Keep the article and add it to List of profanities. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A phrase such of this is more than just a word, it requires more than a dictionary definition, ergo it can be encyclopedic and not dictionaryish Robdurbar 16:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as a notable phrase that's been around for a while. — TKD::Talk 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand why you're all voting to keep. Don't you know what a son of a bitch is? Isn't WP:WINAD policy, or has that been rejected now? Erik the Rude 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef -Doc ask? 23:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ↑ We are quite aware of the slang usage of the term "son of a bitch." Despite the literally meaning, the slang term is a very popular neologistic phrase in the world today and not a simple dictionary definition. (Я не имею—никакой жизни 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep. The Oxford English Dictionary Online's entry for "son of a bitch" is two pages long when copied into MS Word. You can say it brings nothing to the table now, but there are at least five meanings and numerous spellings not included in the article currently. I wouldn't even want to know what a slang dictionary like Partridge's would have to say about it. If anything, it needs dramatic expansion.--Primetime 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Dictionary that's why it should be on Wiktionary and not here and why this article shouldn't exist here. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
↑ I think you're failing to see the point of the opposition to your nomination and opinions toward deletion. There are many notable words and neologism in Wikipedia that are more than mere dictionary definitions. By your logic, the words fuck and bitch should also be deleted. (Я не имею—никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I agree. An encyclopedia is a reference work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". All encyclopedias define at least some vocabulary terms and some even have embedded dictionaries (e.g., Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Besides, it is not a dictionary definition. See "good" to see what a dictionary definition looks like.--Primetime 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further, although WP:WINAD, there is potential for well-known swear phrases/words to be expanded into encyclopedic articles discussing etymology, usage and social acceptance over time, etc., that a simple dictionary definition does not have. — TKD::Talk 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved. Is there third-party research on the usage of this term? If so, let's cite it already. -- Visviva 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep votes like the ones above are why I could never, ever take Wikipedia seriously. We're disagreeing on fundamental definitions here, and if you don't know that adding a bunch of alternative spellings and trivial usage examples to a dictionary definition gets it no closer to being an encyclopedia article, well, I can't see agreeing with you guys on anything, even the color of the sky. Somebody might as well get rid of WP:WINAD, because it's not being followed at all here. I just hope the closing admin ignores the votes that go contrary to policy, but that happens only very rarely. We're on the slippery slope, people. Enjoy the ride down. Erik the Rude 16:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right now this is no better than a dictionary entry, and I don't think it's a very notable phrase, but it's possible it will grow into a lengthy encyclopedic article detailing historical events/figures and controvery surrounding the phrase, etc., full of relevant citations and captions. I think it should be deleted at some point if it does not improve significantly, but I don't see any urgency to delete it this instant. –Tifego(t) 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - dicdef/wangi 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; I despise dicdefs, but the FDR quote is a nice touch. Melchoir 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, to clarify, I don't think this is clearly a dicdef. Melchoir 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ignore all rules, the five major curse words are important. TeKE 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bitch, until such time as a substantial core of verifiable content emerges. Per usual arguments for relatives of the famous. :-) -- Visviva 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A lot of potential here.  Grue  20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's already more than just a dictdef. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish the cultural significance of the term beyond the cultural significance of any other terms in the English language. Cedars 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's clear that people can't stand the thought of this pathetic little excuse of a dictdef being deleted I have proposed on Talk:Son of a bitch that it be merged into Bitch which already has mention of derogatory uses of the term. Any discussions regarding that (unless changing a vote here to merge or voting to merge here) should be directed there. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I respect your idea to move the article into the Bitch article, but I believe for merging articles, one should discuss the merging in the discussion page of which is it proposed to be merged. Therefore, we should direct comments to Talk:Bitch to incorporate opinions from that article as well. — Я не имею никакой жизни File:Nazi Swastika.svg 06:18, 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Oops yeah, that's my mistake. The template points to talk:bitch not talk son of a bitch so discussions should be done there. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a dicdef... pure and simple.--Isotope23 20:41, 20 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Son_of_a_bitch&oldid=1142227769"