Talk:I've been raped
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Offensive to rape victims, their advocates, rapists and their advocates. And people from towns called Rape. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems no more "offensive" than the big penis one, and more potentially useful. Equinox ◑ 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep until we get some proper criteria. Not ridiculous enough to merit outright deletion. The policymakers sort this one out. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem like a serious nomination. Polarpanda 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Should have been shot on sight. This is getting rediculous. We are a dictionary, and until we set up some sort of all encompassing phrase book with clearly defined CFI then these entries should not be permitted.--Dmol 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem like a serious nomination. Polarpanda 22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep until we get some proper criteria. Not ridiculous enough to merit outright deletion. The policymakers sort this one out. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete No, just no. Kill this entry. --Diego Grez 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
AFAICT even the most restrictive approaches to the phrasebook would have it include survival language needed by travelers. Phrases needed to indicate one has just been subject to a common crime, like I've been raped and I've been robbed, would surely qualify. Turning to b.g.c., google books:"I've been raped" intitle:phrasebook indicates this is part of the standard set for Lonely Planet, and is found in some independent phrasebooks as well. Wherever we choose to draw the boundaries of the phrasebook, this would seem to fall well within them. I don't think the nom is serious in claiming this is offensive, but in any case, Wiktionary is not censored. I do not see any reason not to keep this entry, at least as long as we continue to keep phrasebook entries in mainspace. -- Visviva 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Will people please stop randomly RFDing phrasebook entries? This is getting ridiculous. --Yair rand (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- What is rediculous is the creation of these entries, not that someone is (quite rightly) listing them for deletion. Until this is sorted out, we should not allow the creation of any more of these silly entries.--Dmol 05:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wiktionary has been hosting the phrasebook project for over five years, with little or no objection to it. The phrasebook has been, the whole time, a project to add useful phrases like those that are being currently RFD'd. As the way wikis usually work, policies are generally a reaction to a problem, and as the issue of excluding things from the phrasebook didn't exist until recently, of course there is no policy to deal with it. Saying "Until this is sorted out, we should not allow the creation of any more of these silly entries" is like saying that Wiktionary shouldn't include/have included anything at all until we have/had a good CFI, which is plainly ridiculous. A policy is a helpful reaction, not a necessary precursor. --Yair rand (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- What is rediculous is the creation of these entries, not that someone is (quite rightly) listing them for deletion. Until this is sorted out, we should not allow the creation of any more of these silly entries.--Dmol 05:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Visviva. After a decision is made to remove the whole phrasebook from the mainspace, this can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 06:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep. What's several times more offensive than the existence of this entry is the attempt in removing it to deny a person the ability to communicate this information. DAVilla 08:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept as no consensus.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)