Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombshell (sex symbol)

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. v/r - T P 01:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (sex symbol)[edit]

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

Almost everything in this stub article is original research, and if I where to remove all OR, then only "other connotations" will remain. If secondary research cannot be found I believe it's better to delete the article as whole. _→AzaToth 20:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; by sheer definition, that would make it aspire to becoming an inclusive database of all human knowledge. It negates that very definition if it were to exclude the articles that explain certain words and expressions, slang or otherwise, that have any perceived negative connotations, sexual, political or otherwise; especially in a case where clearly the word under discussion has historical and cultural significance from an evolutionary retrospective of an era. It would, in my opinion, be a remarkably silly pursuit if we were to take all published matter from all periods of human history and purge them of all words that were in regular contextual usage at the time of publication, but are deemed offensive now. I am not sure it is an intelligent or even conscionable pursuit to censor and edit history itself to make it more palatable in terms of today's obsessive political correctness. I agree that certain words should not be in usage in contemporary writing and conversation, as they might hurt or offend certain sections of society. But to refrain from explaining their very meanings in their usage in books and writings of an earlier age or to purge them altogether from vintage literature, is just plain officiousness. User:soutrikdd —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: How do we know this is original research, now? It is mostly unreferenced, but I do believe the term "bombshell" arose out of Jean Harlow's role in Bombshell (film) (1933). It may make more sense editorially to fold this into Sex symbol.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Powers ^T 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The word is notable for its social use and history. Here is a reliable sources: [1]. Those two books could also be of use, also they are not from academic presses: [2], [3]. There is probably more, those were just from the first two or three GBooks search pages. I haven't even touched GScholar. Now, the article is basically unreferenced, but that is no grounds for deletion. Just tag it as such and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is grounds for deletion when we have a closely-related topic already and the notability of the term qua term is marginal. Powers ^T 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources I've found suggest the subject is notable on its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in a more sexist day, this was a common term that had several meanings. Once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the concept is notable, but are you claiming that the word itself is notable? Powers ^T 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have some evidence to support that? There's nothing in particular in the article now, and of the three sources linked by Piotrus, the first spends all of a paragraph talking about the word, and the other two are likewise about the concept of a bombshell, not the word qua word. Powers ^T 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every sex symbol is a bombshell. I added in a reference to a clear definition. They were famous women who had hourglass figures, large breasts, were sexually attractive, and originally the term was only used for blondes. The article mentions this and has examples of famous women who the media referred to as "bombshells". Dream Focus 11:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sex symbol Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (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.