Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoon

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The result was withdrawn. JBsupreme (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon

Delete as WP:NOT a dictionary. This is a dictionary article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A dictionary is for short explanations of a word. It is not meant to go into a full explanation and connotations of a term or word. That is what encyclopedias are for. This piece goes beyond a simple dictionary piece in that it goes into history - connotations and ramifications. If we use the rational you are proposing to delete this article under, than terms such as Socialism - Nazi - Evil - Height x Width, should also be brought here to AFD. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss. The article isn't mere definition of the word but also its prevalent usage and laws enacted thus in relation with the said behavior and/or person. It needs cleanup and additional citations but not deletion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this easily goes past a plain dictionary definition. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a misapprehension that WP:DICDEF means Wikipedia may not have articles about words themselves. This is not the case. As long as the article is – or can be expanded to become – more than a mere dictionary definition (in this case, as long as the article says more than "Hoon is an Australian word for 'pimp'", which it does), it is acceptable at Wikipedia. I would point out that we even have a featured article about a word. —An gr 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep passes DICDEF, like others have said, and it at least sourced a little, although some cleanup would be useful. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This goes beyond dicdef -- notability of the subject is clearly stated in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 21 December 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.