Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurotrash (term) (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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Eurotrash (term)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The consensus of the last AFD nomination was to cleanup. More than eight years later, the article is still low-quality. Ringbang (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Partially quoting prev. AfD almost anything described as term belongs on wiktionary, and this is largely WP:OR anyhow (final source does not use the term at all) or add to list of ethnic slurs, (though that article isn't in very good shape either). No reason to believe this term deserves more attention than 100s of other derogatory terms, nor that the history of its use is interesting or studied.Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OED gives 'Rich European socialites, especially those living or working in the United States'. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A dicdef + original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as I honestly believe this can be kept as its own article, no serious needs for deletion. Certainly better AfD targets out there. Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing better. I'm asking from the 1st AfD for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The nomination rationale that it has been eight years without substantial improvement is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. There have apparently been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurotrash_(term)&diff=714789751&oldid=189775488 more than 150 edits] in that time. Admittedly, the thinness of the description suggests that there might not be much to say, but it's also possible that Wikipedians haven't yet found what is being said. Some of the discussion here suggests overlap between Eurotrash and White trash or other ethnic slurs. Merging would seem not out of the question, although it would be nice to keep the bit about the term being coined in the 1980s by a European living in the United States. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that. The reasons for that guideline are sound; but remember that they're predicated on the notion that the article has development potential. I nominated it because of doubts about its potential, not its present state. Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Wiktionary suggests that the term refers to European low-art as well as certain European people. I've found sources using the term to discuss film and other popular art, though I'm not sure if they discuss it as a term. For example: ; Carr, Jay. "La Femme Nikita: Classy, Good-Looking Eurotrash." Boston Globe 4 (1991); Axford, Barrie, and Richard Huggins. "Media without boundaries: fear and loathing on the road to eurotrash or transformation in the European cultural economy?" Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 9.2 (1996): 175-184. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * About "Further comment": - we are discussing an article about a specific concept, namely deregatory term for people. If there is enough info about art, then Eurotrash (arts) article may be due. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * about "term coined in 1980s" - if your read the NYTimes article, you see is discusses the meaning completely different from defined in our article (although also derogatory). That's exactly the issue with dicdefs: the same word had different meanings. That's why this article is nothing but a dicdef: several meanings and, as you noticed yourself, "there might not be much to say" despite being edited many times. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cnilep is right to point out that the sources need to be about the word. To my mind, in order for an article about the 'classist slur' sense of the word to be useful and interesting (beyond dicdef), it has to answer this question: "How and why did some Americans come to have this perspective?" And in order to answer that question, the article has to give some history of the social scenes that incubated this perspective. These are the sources to look for (note the plural). Right now, as often seems to be the case with these kinds of articles, the definition given contradicts authorities. Just so we're clear on what we're talking about:
 * "rich European socialites, especially those living or working in the US"


 * "fashionable Europeans, traveling or living abroad, of a type regarded variously as pretentious, shallow, irresponsible, parasitic, etc."


 * "any rich socialite from Europe who lives or works in the US"


 * This is the topic of the article. (Thanks, Staszek Lem.) As for the art context: Could be interesting with the right sources, but that would mean forking the edit history to a completely different topic, for which we have no content. Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. and expand. If there arem utliple important meanings, the term should be qualified appropriately.  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the specific content that you feel is beyond the purview of Wiktionary and its editorial process? Ringbang (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. A google search suggests the "eurotrash" concept might have some history and significance behind it. Either that or merge into Anti-Europeanism or something.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "For now" has been dragging since 2008, i.e., actually "for 8 years now" since the previous AfD. When do you think it is time to turn "now" into "then"? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, there isn't enough content here to constitute a section in Anti-Europeanism, and redirecting to the article would give the impression that Eurotrash is a general pejorative for all Europeans. Wikimedia is a synergistic ecosystem. Working well within that system means knowing when to hand over traffic to a sister project so they can do what they do best. —Ringbang (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment re: "The nomination rationale that it has been eight years without substantial improvement is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions". You are right when it is readily demonstrated that improvement is possible. However in our case the actual argument is "it is a dicdef and nobody managed to prove it otherwise". The arguments of kind "google gives 10zillion hits" and "there might be something out there" are not acceptable. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources with significant discussion of the topic, not just google hits. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep : whilst there isn't much above a dictionary definition here, and progress hasn't been made in 8 years, Guido (slang) and Chav show what can be..... Rayman60 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a real term, used as slang; however, I don't know how this can be improved much. I'd redirect to the Wiktionary article. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article isn't the best however articles can be expanded at any time, We have thousands of articles like this that haven't been improved in over 10 years but we don't delete them ... we work with what we have and further expand it which should apply here too - Google brings up a few sources so this article could easily be expanded beyond what it is now. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What are the sources you found that you think would enrich the article? —Ringbang (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (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.