Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangina (2): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 16 February 2022

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 for lack of reliable sources either in the article or in this discussion. Absent verification I won't redirect but that's an editorial decision. In case this article should be recreated again, I suggest looking up sources first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangina

I don't know what state this article was in at the time of its first AfD, but it appears to have had a rather traumatic image on it ^{[1], [2]}. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. I recommend that users coming to give their opinions here should look at the article's log, and also that if the article is deleted, it should be protected to prevent recreation. riana_dzasta 08:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was indeed used in Deuce Bigalow, redirect there; otherwise delete as dictdef. Kavadi carrier 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I rather suspect that if it is just redirected, someone will come along and recreate it anyway. riana_dzasta 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it at least gives readers a clue the term has actually been used in the movie. The {{deletedpage}} says nothing informative at all. Kavadi carrier 09:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Something like kitten huffing and Uncyclopedia?~~ No, kitten huffing was never a real article. Still, redirecting sounds alright by me. Not great, but OK. riana_dzasta 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Torn - I suspect Mangina is the kind of thing that could have enough references and citations dug up to make a halfways decent article. That said, I'm not sure I want to be googling "Mangina" whilst I'm at work. WilyD 15:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I think not :p riana_dzasta 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it passes the is this a factual article based on things the average Joe on the street knows already? smell test. In principle almost any dictionary entry can be expanded to create an encyclopaedic article. WilyD 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Deuce. >Radiant< 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appropriate for a ( slang ) dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Let's be aware of the difference, people ! WMMartin 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per nomination. scope_creep
Redirect per Kavadi carrier. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep I can't see what the fuss is about. It clearly needs references but as far as I can see most people seem just to want to censor the article which is against Wikipedia policy. I couldn't find any warnings about tidying up, do the normal thing, tell the user to wikify it and OK if it can't be brought up to a an encyclopedic standard then put it up for AfD --Mike 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to AfD Haseler (talk · contribs). Yes, censoring with extreme prejudice articles whose existence is contraindicated by content policies and guidelines is a good summary of what we do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wha... Angus, rephrase in simple English for the science student, please! :) Contraindication = a factor that increases the risk involved in engaging in a certain activity. I'm not sure what context you're using the word in here... Care to get back to me on that one? if that came across as rude, I apologise... I'm genuinely confused. riana_dzasta 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - wikipedia is not a dictionary, least of all for smut from adolescent comedy movies. Pete Fenelon 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Mangina is a derogative term for toadying men. It is extremely common within the antifeminist movement. --David Hain 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- which makes it sound like it wants to be Transwikied to wiktionary, if it's a current definition. WP:NOT Pete Fenelon 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a redirect is created it should be protected to prevent recreation. Eluchil404 07:52, 14 November 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.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ** which makes it sound like it wants to be ''Transwiki''ed to wiktionary, if it's a current definition. [[WP:NOT]] [[User:Pete Fenelon|Pete Fenelon]] 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' if a redirect is created it should be protected to prevent recreation.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>