Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word)
Clearly a lexical entry and in violation of ; bloke is simply a contextual colloquialism for "Man|man" and we have an entry for that, obviously.  Note this was also the finding of an RfC on the issue before the article was even created, but that a draft was made and inappropriately promoted to article space over the consensus.   The entry has been inflated by nonsensically separating "Etymology," "Origin" and "History" into three sections, and all of the sources are either A) etymological in nature, or B) do not even address the subject matter and its relevance but rather just use the word in passing (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-25/entertainment/ca-3072_1_journalist-sue-charlton Archetypal Aussie Still a Likable Bloke in "Dundee" or http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d08c8791-7600-46b9-9c6d-9b89ea431ea7 Actor the quintessential Aussie bloke).  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996881,00.html One source examines the social meaning of the word but is hardly sufficient to meet the extremely stringent standards for allowing purely lexical entries on Wikipedia; we allow this only for words like American (word)|American that are of massive importance and have many highly variable and contextual meanings.   Please note the distinction that I am making here between a general-purpose word and a ''specific'' non-lexical subject matter -- I would not, for example, oppose the creation of the article First Bloke, assuming a few more sources were found demonstrating its cultural relevance, as this would refer to a concrete independent subject.  But the current entry is clearly lexical and belongs at Wiktionary.  Etymological, semantic, or grammatical content (and sources) should be merged into the entry on that project, to the extent they are appropriate
— User:Snow, 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NOTDICT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)