Talk:biker gang

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RFD discussion[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


A gang of bikers (despite Luciferwildcat's original definition claiming otherwise). (Note that it was somebody else, not I, who changed the definition from his.) Compare furry fandom, which failed RFD recently. Equinox 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A group of people whose primary interest and activity is riding motorcycles.’ Isn’t that synonymous with the plural bikers? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm normally something of an inclusionist when it comes to compounds written as two words, but even I have to draw the line at this one. It's just a gang of bikers. —Angr 11:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    It's a "common collocation" I guess, but it is very transparent, a gang of bikers. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. --WikiTiki89 16:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can be re-expressed as "bikie gang" anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A gang of cyclists? I don't think so. Criminals? Not necessarily. Keep. DAVilla 03:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up with citations clearly supporting a non-SoP sense. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current definition is laughably off the mark, but a correct one would derive its meaning from some sense of biker and from gang Chuck Entz (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a target for translations and synonyms. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Matthias Buchmeier, do you just plan on voting keep for everything ever? Anything can have a synonym or a translation. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
No, of course I don't plan to include anything. But I think that the limit for inclusion should be as permissive as possible. After all the inclusion of most terms discussed here will IMHO not harm wiktionary, but a too restrictive policy might do harm, and rfd-discussions certainly deduct time and energy of contributers, which could be employed much better. So, in conclusion, I would support more restrictive rules for deletion, which might be e.g. some additional rules like WT:COALMINE, or a deletion veto for a certain group contributors. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "No, of course I don't plan to include anything" as an appropriate reply. If you've read your own comments over the years, you do seem to want to keep everything, no matter what it's linguistic merits. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't care much about linguistic merits, but about practical usability. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)