Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumpkin (sexual activity)

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 of the debate was DELETE. Not a reference has been provided, and so none of the concerns of the deleters are dealt with. Indeed, if urbandictionary is the best external link that can be found, then we should be questioning very seriously if this is suitable for an encyclopedia. -Splash^talk 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpkin (sexual activity)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a list of slang terms. DanielCD 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rebuttal... articles such as Cleveland steamer, which is also a sexual act and is also a slang term, is allowed to stay on Wikipedia. I can understand merging it with another article... but not outright deleting it. Bubby the Tour G 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, vote keep. If you can expand the article, it has a better change of surviving. This is just a discussion; it doesn't mean it's certain to be deleted. --DanielCD 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can MadCow257 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with a master list of sexual slang terms. However, there's no reason to include a link to a video of someone's grandmother being ridiculed over her unfamiliarity with the word. 24.208.72.177 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a sub-stub. Nothing found on first pages of goggle serach FloNight ^talk 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a definition of it on http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin... the first definition there, posted by user Marklar on Aug 18, 2004 Bubby the Tour G 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User submitted terms. WP is not a collection of everything that anybody said. FloNight ^talk 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism per lack of useful google hits. JoshuaZ 05:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, regardless of whether it makes me sick or not. --E lkman - ^(talk) 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bubby. Arbusto 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, rarely used neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a valid source for anything. Catamorphism 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism with unverifiable usage. Urban Dictionary is not a credible source. Also, isn't the accepted term for this "blumpkin," anyway? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect that and the Cleveland thing to Coprophilia. yuck --Midnighttonight 08:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4 if possible as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blumpkin. Otherwise delete per nom as WP:WINAD. Esquizombi 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dic def. Obina 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef and nn neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and no real information here either. Sfnhltb 13:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sfnhltb abakharev 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is described in this entry is a Blumpkin, and that article has already been merged with Howard Stern. This is quite possibly a mispronunciation of blumpkin. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well... I can see things are not going well for my lil' stubbo at all. Lumpkin, LOL, what a funny word! Sounds kind of like pumpkin, except more vulgar... BRB, my girlfriend is gonna make me some lumpkin pie... :) Bubby the Tour G 05:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not to mention the fact that I quite literally gagged upon reading it. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 07:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete neologism, non verifiable and the source is urbancraptionary ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - waste of space. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete per Esquizombie, Catamorphism and BrianGC Deizio 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless, prior to end of AfD discussion, a better reference than the Urban Dictionary is cited and unless good, verifiable material is added to make the article more than a dictionary definition. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pumpkin (sexual activity) and redirect to Halloween. Failing consensus to do that, delete unless reliable sources provided. - brenneman ^{L} 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --James 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is still a sexual slang term and there are many others on Wikipedia Michaelritchie200 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real article and unlikely to become one. No reliable source. u p p l a n d 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notice that most comments on deleting/keeping this article appear in the period after which the video in question first started to appear on the web. Clearly people use this site as a resouce for non-traditional terms such as this.User:AtlasMc 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment contributed 03:00, 28 March 2006 71.244.110.107 (contribs) Shenme 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, though it is just a stub, has a right to be there. Last I checked, fellatio has its own article with no nomination for deletion. This article is just as that one, it explains something. Also, AtlasMc said above me, this website is often used as a resource for untraditional terms such as this. To delete this article would be to deprive people of said resource. Thunk 05:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) Wikipedia is not urban dictionary 2) Fellatio is a far more common and discussed article, and has nice things like sources. It meets WP:V and WP:N among other criteria. This article does not do any of that. JoshuaZ 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one is being "deprived" of anything, as this information can be found elsewhere. The information is not being deleted, the article is. There's no need for a separate article. Perhaps make it a redirect to wherever such information is usually found. --DanielCD 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Catamorphism, Dpbsmith et al. FreplySpang (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia needs encylcopedic entries, it's not a dictionary of slang HawkerTyphoon 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plus has anybody noticed Nikpulb? It is not like this is an isolated instance. There is a pattern of trying to stuff this into WP. I don't think we should be so accepting. (ouch,ouch,...) Shenme 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, neologism, not urbandictionary, take your pick. Kuzaar 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look, I've been telling my girlfriend that this is "our special thing" that I invented. Wikipedia spoils it for everybody. Seriously, delete per above. Herostratus 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep it. Wikipedia is a prominent resource precisely because it is ecumenical, allowing both canonized intellectual entries while acting as a critical gloss on pop culture items. This has firmly entered pop culture since its explosion on ebaumsworld website, where there is a video clip of kids getting an unwitting grandmother to ask for "a lumpkin". This jest is specifically about her ignorance of vernacular, vulgar or not, and the purpose of Wikipedia should be to provide a resource with knowledge to eliminate our ignorance. This should be broad-based knowledge, whether highbrow, lowbrow, tasteful, or tasteless. This is not a case of promotiing a term of hate, discrimination, racism, or something similarly damaging. I can see the argument against Wikipedia allowing those sorts of things, as they abrogate people's fundamental rights, but this is mere squeamishness. As long as the wording of the entry is not vulgar (which it currently is not), I think it should stay. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.55.47.129 (talk • contribs) .

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.

Lumpkin (sexual activity)

zproxy.org