Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil and rude

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil and rude

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability and it appears to be WP:OR. Quid Pro Quo²³ 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at the history: this article began in 2002. It started as a part of the Jargon File, a public domain source of old-timey hacker terminology that was made into some of the earliest articles of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in six years, the article has not been expanded at all beyond what was imported from the Jargon File - a dictionary definition. :) Somno (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no indication in the article about whether this is notable even in the world of computer programming. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At most it is a dictionary item. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the Jargon File is an interesting and amusing read (if you're an aging geek), individual entries need not find their way here unless somewhat notable (like foo, bar foobar, flame, bug, kludge, etc). Equendil Talk 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made it a stub, but it would be easier just to kill this thing off. PhishRCool ^{Talk / Contribs / Secret Page} 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But expand!--Ret.Prof (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you know how it could be expanded? Somno (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see what more could be added, this wasn't even part of the original jargon file. That kind of semi slang is highly volative, that particular expression has probably never been in much use in the first place, and in any case, there isn't much to say about most of the entries in the jargon file beyond dictionary definitions that don't belong here. Equendil Talk 04:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my stance in nominating one of the sister articles Good Thing and Bad Thing. These three articles (this one, Good Thing and Bad Thing, and Bad and Wrong) basically restate the title and then ramble for a bit about the supposed significance of using these words with capital letters. It's late, and I'm not particularly strong with policy anyway, so I'm not going to try to cite anything, but there has come a point where I'm just throwing up my hands and saying "What the hell is this?" Is an article like Tremendous (currently a redirect to a boat with that name) going to spring up, saying "Tremendous is a really good thing to say about something" which goes on to talk about a book that used that word a lot? Would that be a good article? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase is too obscure for an encyclopedia. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (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.