Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hokkien profanity

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 keep (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkien profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This appears to be basically a dictionary of profanity. No sources, no evidence of notability. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is of course part of a large categorization scheme, Profanity by language, with many similar Fooian profanity main articles, and it seems to me the way to proceed, per WP:PRESERVE, would be to tag it as unreferenced -- or better yet try to find and add some. But I don't see why we would single out and delete one particular profanity by language article over what should be a fixable problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although unsourced, the content is encyclopedic and falls in line with the wider "profanity by language" series. We're better off keeping than deleting it. Deryck C. 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how i missed the category, but I did search and find nothing. Probably others familiar with the category can find something showing it's been discussed in some detail. But I'm not convinced that all Fooian profanity articles are automatically notable. I'll withdraw this in a couple of days if no one agrees with me, but I'd like to keep it open a bit. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 11 November 2016 (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.