Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaner (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Redirect to List of ethnic slurs. I don't see a consensus for deletion, but the argument that the article is currently a dictionary definition does appear to have some consensus. If it is indeed possible to expand the article through use of additional sources, then it can always be split again. Shimeru 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beaner (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ethnic slur, prior deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now back here. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have articles about the terms "chink," "nigger," "kike" and "spic"? —David Levy 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) "Chink," "nigger," "kike" and "spic" are individual slang names for classes of people. You claimed that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people," but each of those terms has a separate article. What am I missing here? —David Levy 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Of course we wouldn't write an article about Mexicans under the title "Beaner." That's a straw man argument. The "nigger" article isn't about black people, nor is the "kike" article about Jews. These articles document the words themselves (and can extend far beyond the level of information appropriate for a dictionary). I'm not implying that we should have such an article for every ethnic slur (or for "beaner"), but it's patently incorrect to claim that we have articles for none. —David Levy 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1. When did I say that we have separate articles for every slang name? On the contrary, I explicitly noted that "I'm not implying that we should have such an article for every ethnic slur." In fact, I don't even believe that we should have an article for "beaner." 2. I did not claim that you asserted that "we don't have articles about these stereotypes at all." In fact, I made no reference to articles about stereotypes, and I don't know why you keep referencing such a concept. The articles that I cited are about the words themselves (just as the "beaner" article is), not the people that the words offensively describe. Again, you claimed that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." WE DO. We don't have one for every ethnic slur, but some have had enough cultural impact to warrant such write-ups. Is "beaner" one of them? I don't believe so, but that's beside the point. —David Levy 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I'm trying to assume good faith, but you aren't making it easy. —David Levy 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 2. Again, the article's subject is the word "beaner." Hence, the title is "beaner." Similarly, our "kike" article is not about kikes (an offensive term for Jews). It's about the word "kike." But again, I'm not arguing that we should have a standalone "beaner" article. I'm pointing out that your rationale is 100% incorrect. —David Levy 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of ethnic slurs (into which it appears to already have been merged). —David Levy 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I reverted the redirect to start the discussion, and it was brought up in the review. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's notable enough to exist, and that it's specific enough to have its own article. - Richard Cavell 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell us not your personal opinion, try to find support for your views in a policy or guideline. Punkmorten 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is true —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Redirect as suggested by David Levy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't redirect. Plenty of information available to sustain an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. This as it stands is a dictionary article, not an encyclopaedia article.  There's nothing here that cannot be said in beaner, and in fact there are several things that Wiktionary says that this article doesn't.  It has zero information to sustain an encyclopaedia article.  There's no scope to write an encyclopaedia article about beaners here, for the simple reason that the proper title for writing about Mexicans is of course Mexican.   Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  We don't have separate articles for each individual slang name for parts of the human body, and we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people.  We have articles on parts of the human body, and on classes of people, by their proper titles.  At best this is a redirect, as stated both above and in the deletion review discussion.  Uncle G 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on most of these points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs).
 * And you're wrong in doing so. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "...we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people."
 * ...yeah, was gonna say, didn't chink just come up on AfD not too long ago with a resounding keep? --Dennisthe2 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as you'll find, we don't have separate articles for the individual slang names that can be used for those (stereotypical) classes of people. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...yes, we do. Do you see those links?  I'm not even arguing that Beaner should be a separate article, but your claim that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people" was patently incorrect.  —David Levy 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. You appear to be confused by thinking these are the only slang names that can be used.  I suggest learning more about slang.  A quick trip to wikt:Wikisaurus:chav should prove to be an informative start. Uncle G 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, so we must be on two totally different wavelengths.
 * I'll elucidate. Look at the Wikisaurus entry that I pointed to.  There are a lot of slang names for this class of people.  We don't have individual articles about chavs under all of those separate titles.  We have one article on the stereotype, and redirects from a few alternative names (including charva and chavette, for examples).  Now look at wikt:Wikisaurus:penis.  We don't have individual articles about penises under all of those slang names.  We have one article about penises at penis, with (largely preventative) redirects at a few names such as schlong and weenie.  The task of writing individual articles on individual slang words, documenting their multiple meanings and when they were in use, and collecting and cross-referencing lists of synonyms, is lexicography, that is the remit of the "lexical companion to Wikipedia" whose goal is to be a dictionary (of slang and otherwise, like other dictionaries) and thesaurus.  As you can see from how far it has got with it already, it is a task that Wiktionary can do exceedingly well, far better than one could ever hope to do at Wikipedia (given, for starters, that Wikipedia's article titles are in English). Now an article title in Wikipedia denotes its subject.  An article entitled beaner should be about beaners.  But "beaner" (considerations of "Beaner" being a surname and our having a name disambiguation article here aside) is simply a slang name for a Mexican.  We shouldn't have an article on Mexicans under beaner any more than we should have an article on penises under weenie.  Similarly, we could have an article on the amelioration of slurs.  But that, too, doesn't belong under beaner because (a) the subject of the article would be amelioration of slurs not beaners, and (b) "beaner" isn't the only ethnic slur that people are attempting to ameliorate, by a long chalk, and such a scope is a ridiculously narrow one for the overall discussion. Uncle G 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the above is relevant to fact that your claim was false. We do have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people.
 * Rubbish. It's entirely relevant, because it's what I have asserted right from the start.  No, we do not have separate articles for all of these slang names.  I've given you several examples of where we have just one article, for things that have lots of slang names.  Your straw man argument, saying that I asserted that we don't have articles about these stereotypes at all simply in order to rebut it as "patently incorrect", is no more than that: a straw man.  "We have articles on parts of the human body, and on classes of people, by their proper titles." was in what I wrote right at the start, too. Uncle G 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, what the hell are you talking about? It certainly isn't the same thing that I'm talking about.
 * I've explained what I'm talking about at length. When you said it was just above in this very discussion.  (Your very words were "Yes, we do.".)  You most certainly did create that straw man which you then proceeded to knock down.  (Your very words were "claim that we have articles for none".)  And we do not have separate articles for the individual slang names.  You can see this for yourself, and your continued assertions to the contrary are flying directly in the face of evidence that we can all actually see.  Just look at the things that I said to look at above. Uncle G 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have separate articles for the individual slang names. You can see this for yourself, and your continued assertions to the contrary are flying directly in the face of evidence that we can all actually see: Chink, Nigger, Kike, Spic.
 * Once again: Look at the lists of slang names that I've already pointed to; and note that we don't have individual articles for each individual name on those lists. You can actually see for yourself that we don't have separate articles for each of the individual slang names for these classes of people/parts of the body.  I've even pointed out some of the redirects.  Just look at the things that I said to look at above.  Uncle G 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again: Look at the list of slang names that I've already pointed to (chink, nigger, kike, spic) and note that we have individual articles for each individual name on that list. You can actually see for yourself that we have separate articles for each of these individual slang names for classes of people.  Just look at the things that I said to look at above. You've listed words for which no articles exist and cited them as evidence that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people."  That claim is false, as are your claims that "an article entitled beaner should be about beaners" and that a hypothetical weenie article would be about penises.  Again, the articles that I have cited are about the slurs themselves, not the ethnic groups to which they offensively refer.  The fact that many slang terms lack the societal impact to warrant the existence of standalone articles does not mean that we shouldn't have articles about any slang terms.  —David Levy 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've listed words for which no articles exist and cited them as evidence that "we don't have separate articles for individual slang names for classes of people." &mdash; That's because the non-existence of articles is evidence that we do not have articles.  I'm not sure how much plainer that fact could be.  And if you don't think that an article entitled "beaner" should be about beaners, then you clearly need to read our Naming conventions and other help pages.  Article titles denote what articles are about. Uncle G 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. You've provided evidence of the fact that we lack articles about many slang terms (which is not in dispute). This does not establish that we don't have articles about any slang terms.  (I've provided evidence that we do have articles about some.)  What you're doing is comparable to naming people for whom we have no articles and citing this as evidence that we don't have articles about people.
 * Delete, as I suggested when I first listed this. Dicdef at best. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you advocating the removal of the merged "beaner" entry from the List of ethnic slurs article (required unless the attribution history is retained)? If so, why?  —David Levy 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I made any mention of that at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't. That's why I'm asking you.  —David Levy 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't fit Wikipedian guidelines. Artaxiad 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and now it's more than a dicdef. It's now a stub. Keep, and improve from its current state. --Dennisthe2 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confused about our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. We don't keep dictionary articles simply because they have more than 1 paragraph.  We keep encyclopaedia articles.  There is still no encyclopaedia article content in this article.  All that has happened is that more dictionary article content has been added.  More usage information has been added, on the point of whether the word has pejorative connotations or not.  This is canonical "usage note" territory for a dictionary.  The article is still a dictionary article, only longer. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is basically simple: damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I keep, we have a dicdef as an article.  If we delete, a technicality causes us to remove content that is otherwise documentable.  It is this case that I think WP:IAR is for, thus my changing my mind to a keep.  --Dennisthe2 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncle G: I'm guessing by your style of English that you're hailing from outside of North America; I think in your hastiness to condemn this article as being unworthy of an encyclopedic article, and being merely a slightly expanded dictionary entry, that you're failing to realize that his term does indeed carry quite a bit of cultural significance in the southwesten United States, particularly in southern California.  Yes, as the article stands now it is only a stub, but given the nature of this specific term there is unquestionably the capability for it to be expanded substantially. Certainly to well beyond the scope of the ethnic slurs article. --Bri 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, the page's text already has been merged into the List of ethnic slurs article. Per the GFDL, we cannot delete the revision history while leaving the merged text in place.  Does anyone actually advocate removing it from that article?  If not, the only GFDL-compatible solution (other than keeping the article) is to leave the revision history intact and redirect the page to List of ethnic slurs.  Such a redirect was in place before the article was restored purely for the sake of discussing its existence here.  —David Levy 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of ethnic slurs - you can't democratically remove forms of speech with which you disagree. --Phrost 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As David Levy said above, why are there articles for "chink," "nigger," "kike," etc. but beaner is inapppropriate? Sure, the article could use some more information, but I don't understand why a delete is necessary? --Bri 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My stance is this - in the current condition, it's a dictionary definition. Like you point out, it could use more information - but for the simple definition portion, it's not suitable for WP's purposes.  We're not a dictionary.  Flesh it out and we'll have something, but until then, it would probably exist better as a redirect to the ethnic slurs list. --Dennisthe2 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So why are you advocating outright deletion?  —David Levy 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it hadn't been changed. --Dennisthe2 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per above, and per WP:WINAD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, Strong Anti-Delete - More than a dicdef. Not much more, but more all the same.  I have no idea if it could be expanded more, but at the very least it is an acceptable Wikipedia stub.  Regardless, the information should be retained in some form, as it is verifiable, and Wikipedia is not censored. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You, too, are confused about our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Adding more dictionary article content to a dictionary article does not make it "more than a dicdef".  You are conflating "dictionary" and "short", and your rationale is erroneous as a result.  Please read the policy. Uncle G 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Yes, that's right, call me stupid. Excellent way to hammer your point home.  Now, ignorance of WP:CIVIL aside, let's address the issue of "adding more dictionary article content": the article contains a brief, expandable summary of the term's history and subjective impact.  All these bits of information are outside the scope of a dictionary definition; a dicdef would be limited to the meaning and useage of the word. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no statement that you are stupid anywhere in the text above. However, you are continuing to conflate "dictionary" and "short", and your consequent argument about what is within the scope of a dictionary article is erroneous as a result.  Once again: Please read the policy.  It tells you what the actual scope of a dictionary article is.  Uncle G 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my reply. Again.  Slowly.  This is not based on article length, but article content.  The content present in this stub already far exceeds the scope of a dicdef laid out in Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue</b> <b style="color:green;">check</b>) 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not exceed the scope of a dictionary article. Once again:   There's nothing here that cannot be said in beaner, and in fact there are several things that Wiktionary says that this article doesn't.  Uncle G 01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per David Levy. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per David Levy. Edison 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a mere dictionary definition.  The content remains a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of the word.  I see no possibility of expansion past that.  I have no objection to a transwiki to Wiktionary.  I don't think that a redirect to a list article really solves anything, though a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page might.  Rossami (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you advocate removing the merged content from the List of ethnic slurs article then? —David Levy 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the short term, I don't really care. In the long term, that page should also be moved into Wiktionary.  The growing consensus across both projects is that Wiktionary appendices are better suited for list of slang (or list of pretty much any other set of words) pages.  We can easily create cross-wiki links wherever that is appropriate but, in general, the editors who frequent Wiktionary have better skills and tools to write, source and verify lexical content than we do.  Since the content of Beaner has already been transwiki'd, there would be no remaining GFDL issues once the slang list is also moved over.  Rossami (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No good reason has been presented to delete, and I certainly see no reason. ReverendG 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per David Levy. This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Gobonobo  T C 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The article for "nigger" contains substantial information on the word's changing usage (especially in public discourse), its representation in literature, and so on. I found that article useful. If someone wants to expand the "beaner" article with information of that quality and scope, I'm all for it. DoorsAjar 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion simply doesn't make sense.  Even if this is determined to be a dicdef (which I'm not certain it is) it still should be merged with Wiktionary, since no one's arguing the content isn't suited to Wiktionary.  If this is to be redirected, again, simply merge the content.
 * As for whether this is dictionary or encyclopedic content, the main issue seems to be what constitutes usage notes. According to the standard presented in "Wikipedia is not a usage guide", "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words should be used."  Which is basically the standard, prescriptivist usage writing philosophy, as enunciated by Geoffrey Nunberg.  There is also the descriptivist view, which simply "records the facts of how a word is used and presents it in a neutral way".  Which is the only way I can see this article being construed as a dictionary article.  The problem with this definition of a dictionary article is that there isn't a very clear line between encyclopedic and dictionary content, since both try to "record the facts and present them in a neutral way".  If you hold that WP:WINAD is talking about descriptivist usage notes, even though WP:WINAD is clearly talking about usage notes under the prescriptivist model, then the logical consequence is that all articles about words ought to be deleted, since there isn't anything to write about a word other than how it has been used historically and how it is perceived, all of which can be parts of a descriptivist usage note.  However, since WP:NOT doesn't forbid articles about words, and even explicitly states that articles about slang terms are acceptable, and since WP:WINAD describes usage notes as "describing how a word should be used", we shouldn't impose outside conceptions of what usage notes are on Wikipedia and just follow policy.  I would say this should be merged into List of ethnic slurs, but the size of this is getting to the point where it should be in a separate article.  --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The N word is on wikipedia, and this is prevalent as well. As for the tone of the article it should not espouse hatred toward Hispanics, as a general rule. Baka man  22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.