Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dago dazzler


 * 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The result was   Speedy keep nomination withdrawn and only keep votes, closed by myself but acting as in non-admin closure. Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dago dazzler

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a dictionary definition and includes only samples of the term's useage along with inevitable synthesis to conclude facts about the term. No reliable source presented has covered the term in and of itself in an encyclopedic manner. See WP:DICTIONARY. The fact that this term is not represented on wiktionary suggests a transwiki may be appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I thought this would be a slam-dunk deletion request on "Not Urban Dictionary" grounds. This is actually a really well done historical article on a bit of long-established (and seemingly notable) racist slang. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No the word dago is racist slang. However, this is an article on the phrase "dago dazzler". Please look a bit deeper it is not the same thing. Here I only see a small list of examples of the use of the phrase and no matter how well they are presented that is all it is. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this is a pre-internet racist phrase and one is apt to see only the tip of the iceberg with a Google search. Even that tip is large enough to justify inclusion. This is a well-done piece of work and its deletion would diminish Wikipedia's knowledge pool. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. I searched "Dago dazzler" and not just "Dago"... Carrite (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that it does not matter that the phrase only appears in a few old books and this has essentially been replicated here, we should ignore the fact that it is a dictionary definition and that all interpretation of what the phrase means and its history is entirely original research and synthesis. I do not share this viewpoint and would prefer this sort of thing to be covered in wiktionary without the original research necessary to try to turn it into an encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that this is a well-done article on a topic worthy of inclusion and I can not rationalize its deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay but I am concerned that the entire lede is currently original research and the rest of the article is then simply cited quotes to back this up. No matter how well this is done it is of concern to me that presenting original research on old phrases is not what wikipedia is for. Polargeo (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This is an interesting article (as I've said before). If there are problems then improve the article instead of deleting it. Polargeo, even if it wasn't your intention it really seems like you are harassing JB at this point and you should back off. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article does not stand up as an encyclopedic article on wikipedia so why are you requesting I fix it? On what basis are you !voting keep? Polargeo (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (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.