Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feck

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 no consensus. Courcelles 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feck

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

Article about a word that provides very few encyclopedic details or context. "In popular culture" sections are deprecated, and most of the rest is lexical data that belongs in a dictionary. The only part that is remotely encyclopedic is "Debate about the word's level of offensiveness", but a couple of small paragraphs is not enough to sustain a full article on its own. Powers ^T 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article needs to be expanded, but there is lots more to cover. This is an interesting word with lots of social context; definitely encyclopedic IMO. West Eddy (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already present at Wikitionary, yes, but this page also contains some interesting and relevant material which would not be present there. Plus, it actually has some decent references. Several Times (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If someone wants to expand it, there are these sources. I especially like this source. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per reliable sources researched by User:Gene93k, which qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming you mean SL93, I don't see very much significant coverage there. The one SL93 "especially like"s, in fact, is just a footnote. Powers ^T 12:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hotchpotch of dialect words with different meanings, contrary to WP:DICDEF. Note that it doesn't have the meaning recorded by the OED of a rumen. Warden (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't just a definition, but also list notable cases where the word got news coverage for being said on television, etc. Dream Focus 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2011 (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.