264:
group of speakers -- anime fans who happen to use this term because they are interested in the pictures. That's what's "extra" here. The first paragraph is unlikely, if not inaccurate. "Jailbait" is used for women above the age of consent? It is? I must not be keeping up, then. The term is
27:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for
Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
208::: this may have begun as slang, but it has now passed into a broader usage, which has run for at least ten if not twenty years. To the extent that other phrases have superceded it, the entry deserves to be encyclopaediased for future reference. --
109:
The new article needs some cleanup, but its an article worth having. I don't understand the above votes. If you would have voted keep for a better article, why not leave the bad one as a stub? --best, kevin
394:
there's a cultural significance to the idea of jailbait w/r/t age of consent laws, popular music as well as a tiny linux distro and 359,000 Google hits. Worth expanding and rewriting more accurately.
74:
Section 1.2.3. goes on to say: "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." I agree that a better executed
273:"rapists" and "pedophiles": that's the whole point of the term!) Anyway, I don't see the great value here or the way that it escapes being dictdef.
269:
that the subject is only interested in sex, but I don't think the bad part of it is due to the reversal of blame. (People who take jailbait are
492:
This article is a garbage magnet and any useful information can be put in articles about statutory rape and/or sexual mores/customs.
293:
17:
511:
286:
220:- Whater does or could go beyond a slang dicdef is covered, or could be covered, in existing non-slang articles. --
510:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
382:
193:
98:
55:
section 1.2.3: Knowledge is not a slang, idiom, or usage guide. This article is a slang definition.
496:
484:
467:
410:
398:
386:
378:
369:
357:
345:
333:
330:
321:
305:
277:
253:
236:
224:
212:
199:
176:
169:
160:
153:
144:
101:
84:
66:
39:
187:
209:
123:
82:
63:
260:
Delete: I hate to be the dissenter, but the extra part is the extension of the slang term to a
168:
I rewrote the first section and cleaned up the rest; take another look. More help appreciated. —
448:
427:
248:
140:. It could belong to Wikitionary as well but i'm hoping that it could be further improved. --
36:
493:
476:
354:
94:
463:
We are not a slang dictionary and this is nowhere near notable or encyclopedic enough. /
265:
offensive for being sexually suggestive, suggesting both that the object is promiscuous
366:
141:
464:
423:
419:
395:
302:
221:
119:
79:
52:
406:
Expand and rewrite, sure, but this goes beyond a simple dictionary definition IMO.
245:
233:
439:
Comment - if the article had more history and references, that is if it was about
89:
This nom was never added to a main VfD page and was also malformed. Fixing now.
62:
as above, but a better executed article would have a higher chance of survival. -
407:
342:
274:
318:
444:
75:
45:
418:
I actually found the article very interesting, but it conflicts with
152:
and cleanup. Already beyond a dicdef, and potential for expansion. —
422:
section 1.2.3 If we want to include this, then we need to re-write
504:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
244:, fairly good article on an extremely notable term.
317:be salvagable, but I can't figure out how myself.
514:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
447:, I could be pursuaded to change my vote --
285:, expand information on traditional use. --
51:Nominated for deletion in accordance with
301:. There's more here than just a dicdef.
7:
365:wikipedia isn't urban dictionary --
353:looks more worthy of wiktionary. --
262:highly, highly, highly specialized
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
497:00:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
485:08:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
468:21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
451:20:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
430:20:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
377:good riddance to bad rubbish.
134:02:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
40:08:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
411:01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
399:01:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
387:02:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
370:18:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
358:14:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
346:22:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
334:22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
322:16:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
306:13:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
295:11:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
278:11:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
254:10:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
237:08:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
225:08:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
213:08:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
200:03:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
177:03:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
161:02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
145:02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
102:01:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
31:The result of the debate was
85:05:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
67:05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
531:
441:how the term came into use
329:for reasons already said.
186:on expanding Knowledge. —
232:. This is fine, actually
35:Keep was leading anyway.
507:Please do not modify it.
93:, more than a dicdef.
78:would be worth having.
512:undeletion request
341:for same reasons.
126:
522:
509:
482:
479:
291:
251:
174:
173:
158:
157:
133:
130:
118:
116:
113:
530:
529:
525:
524:
523:
521:
520:
519:
518:
505:
480:
477:
313:, I think this
287:
249:
171:
170:
155:
154:
131:
128:
114:
111:
49:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
528:
526:
517:
516:
500:
499:
487:
470:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
432:
431:
413:
401:
389:
372:
360:
348:
336:
331:SchmuckyTheCat
324:
308:
296:
280:
257:
256:
239:
227:
215:
210:Simon Cursitor
202:
181:
180:
179:
172:brighterorange
156:brighterorange
147:
135:
104:
87:
69:
48:
43:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
527:
515:
513:
508:
502:
501:
498:
495:
491:
488:
486:
483:
474:
471:
469:
466:
462:
459:
458:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
409:
405:
402:
400:
397:
393:
390:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
371:
368:
364:
361:
359:
356:
352:
349:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
328:
325:
323:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
297:
294:
292:
290:
284:
281:
279:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
258:
255:
252:
247:
243:
240:
238:
235:
231:
228:
226:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
203:
201:
197:
196:
191:
190:
185:
182:
178:
175:
167:
164:
163:
162:
159:
151:
148:
146:
143:
139:
136:
125:
121:
108:
105:
103:
100:
96:
92:
88:
86:
83:
81:
77:
73:
70:
68:
65:
64:Breathstealer
61:
58:
57:
56:
54:
47:
44:
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:no consensus.
29:
19:
506:
503:
489:
472:
460:
440:
415:
403:
391:
374:
362:
350:
338:
326:
314:
310:
298:
288:
282:
270:
266:
261:
241:
229:
217:
205:
194:
188:
183:
165:
149:
137:
106:
90:
71:
59:
50:
32:
30:
26:
475:seems ok --
72:Weak Delete
37:Woohookitty
355:MacRusgail
204:I support
95:JYolkowski
449:Outlander
445:23 skidoo
428:Outlander
392:Weak Keep
367:Mecanismo
311:Weak keep
142:Plastictv
138:Weak keep
396:Jessamyn
379:Ashibaka
303:23skidoo
246:the wub
120:Kzollman
80:Mareklug
76:Jailbait
46:Jailbait
461:Delete.
234:Pilatus
189:RaD Man
166:comment
490:Delete
481:stucco
443:as in
424:WP:NOT
420:WP:NOT
416:Delete
408:Elrith
375:Delete
363:Delete
351:Delete
343:Vizjim
289:BD2412
275:Geogre
218:Delete
60:Delete
53:WP:NOT
465:Peter
319:Mcfly
315:might
250:"?/!"
16:<
494:Paul
473:Keep
404:Keep
383:tock
339:Keep
327:Keep
299:Keep
283:Keep
242:Keep
230:Keep
206:keep
195:talk
184:Keep
150:keep
124:Talk
107:Keep
99:talk
91:Keep
478:red
426:.--
271:not
267:and
222:rob
97://
385:)
198:)
122:|
381:(
192:(
132:·
129:·
127:·
117:·
115:·
112:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.