Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choad

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, trans-wikified already. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choad

This has been transwikied, any reasons for it to stay here? (No more bongos 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete not a known slang. should keep it in wiktionary itself. --Ageo020 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as dick def. It lists a definition and other dictionary-type information and I don't think it could expand to include more. However, saying this is not known slang is not true, as it is in wide use, although the width of its use may be greater than the length of time it's been common. GassyGuy 07:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree it's a dickdef Dlyons493 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TedE 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be sad to see this article go. Believe it or not, choad is a rather important concept amongst the younger crowd, and if they can't come to Wikipedia for an explanation, they'll just end up on some crappy slang website. We wrote an article on Tag (game), I think we can manage choad. --Cyde Weys 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article about a thing, a children's game. The thing that an article this title would be about is already discussed by the article under its English language name of penis. And people who come to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it is a dictionary are presented with MediaWiki:Noarticletext, which encourages them to search Wiktionary, whereupon they will find wikt:choad, which is well on the way to being a proper dictionary article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about just redirect to Penis then? --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Samir धर्म 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this India-related? It's only India-related in the sense that Indians have penises too. --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's India-related inasmuch as there's a folk etymology for this word that has it supposedly derived from Hindi. Wiktionarians have discussed this in detail (Wiktionary being the place where etymologies of words are researched, discussed, and written about). See wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Oxford Hindi-English dictionary (R. S. McGregor, Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (May 22, 1997), ISBN 019864339X) on the subject, or even Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where Amrish Puri uses the hindi word with aplomb, much to the chagrin of Indian parents everywhere. It's one of the filthiest hindi words and the translation is quite coincidental. That's why it's related to India related deletions -- Samir धर्म 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - What that dictionary says has been analyzed in depth and found not to support the folk etymology. Again I refer you to wikt:Talk:choad. Uncle G 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My comment was directed at Clyde. I'm not commenting on what the etymology is, but just saying that there's enough to suggest that it should be added to the list of India related deletions. As an aside, I also see no analysis in depth on the wiktionary page, just commentary from one user who doesn't speak the language. Agree that it's not enough to definitively support any theory on etymology -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary I thought the word was Spanish but yeah, it's a dickdef I was familiar with. Appears a few times in Love and Rockets (comics) if I remember correctly. Phr (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expend some effort in AFD discussions. Please actually check Wiktionary before nominating something to be transwikified. Wiktionary already has an article on this word, and indeed had it 6 months before Wikipedia had this article. Uncle G 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already in Wiktionary as stated in the nom. I mean that's the right place for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Phr (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what "Wiktionary" means. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. Uncle G 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although this word was commonplace in my highschool days, and we had a friend we called "the choadster". I don't know why... AdamBiswanger1 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn dictionary entry. --Tim1988 ^talk 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not Urbandictionary.com. Jimbo68 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary More of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. I don't think it should be deleted because it is a known slang (has been used in some TV programs) it's just not used too often. --Tu s pm^{(C | @)} 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already present in Wiktionary and not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:12, 25 July 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.