Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms for multiraciality


 * 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 Delete. WaltonOne 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of terms for multiraciality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per Wikipedia is not a deictionary, specifically states Wikipedia is not should not contain"Usage guides or slang and idiom guides." which I believe this falls under. I am not sure that a glossary page of this sort qualifies as an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While not an endorsement, there is precedence for a list of this type: List of ethnic slurs has been nominated four times for deletion, 3 with "Keep" consensus, and one with no consensus. I think that as long as the multiraciality list remained neutral, it could be helpful to some people, as there are many times it is asked what the "politically correct" term is for someone of multiple ethnicities. I'd like to see some references cited for the "historical" names mentioned, and it may be helpful to remove the red links, as not every term needs its own article. One problem I find with this article is the lack of references, which could lead to WP:OR addition of "terms" that may or may not be used, or common. If kept, I'd suggest perhaps it would be best if the list were trimmed of non-verifiable terms, and the terms included be properly sourced with references. Ariel ♥ Gold 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I had a brilliant argument, but I either didn't save it or it got lost in editing, so this will have to do. There's no prohibition against glossaries, and it is important to keep track of ethnic slurs, particularly if if it's a case of not being aware that a word, new to us, is well-known and offensive to others.  Mandsford 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please take a look at WP:NOT. A glossary is a list of definitions, which is specifically mentioned as not being suitable for an article.  If the information belongs anywhere, it's in Wiktionary, where people can keep track of these terms by using the categories in there.--Michig 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or trim to remove original research per ArielGold. -- B figura (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The issue is not whether or not this information is useful, but rather whether the article should exist according to WP guidelines.  It doesn't belong here, and neither for that matter does List of ethnic slurs for the same reason. If the information is sourced, perhaps it should be moved elsewhere rather than deleted.--Michig 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete First, I'd bet that a good portion of the non-Wikilinked terms are neologisms. Second, as the list is almost without sources, who decides whether a phrase is "generally considered offensive" or not? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep weather YOU personally consider the terms to be offensize or not i think not having this article would only be witholding information and sweeping it under the rug, if the human race did want for so many racial terms why do people use them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryliss (talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say that I found the terms offensive. The glossary itself divides the terms into those "generally considered offensive" and those "generally considered inoffensive". Since the article cites no sources, I questioned who makes the determination that a term is generally considered offensive or inoffensive? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm, I dislike the inclusion of offensive terms in this list (remember that Wikipedia is an International encyclopedia so blabbering on about American free speech [or freedom to cause offense] are irrelevent). This list is a useful tool for people researching the 'multiracial' issue.  I really wish people would stop quoting various Wikipedia policies (not a dictionary, etc.) and other pointless stuff.  Wikipedia policy is decided by the very few Wiki nerds who have too much time on their hands.  The vast majority of Wikipedia users dont have time to create such pointless policies and love this kind of article and other lists.  Constantly nominating good articles for deletion and trying to sound important by quoting stupid Wikipedia policies just puts people off using Wikipeda. 213.230.130.54 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Please be civil, Wikipedia policies (apart from WP:5P) are meant to represent the consensus of the community if you feel that this is not the case you should probably being it up on the talk page for the policy/guideline - not here. Also your arguemnet for keep seems to be WP:USEFUL - everything is potentially useful to someone - that does not mean it should be included in an encyclopaedia. Guest9999 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment Stop quoting irrelevent policies. People who just quote policies in their replies really have no worthwhile opinions.  Why should things which are useful not be part of an encyclopaedia?  Encyclopaedias are about collecting knowledge and therefore everything is knowledge.  People like you and those who like deleting things just because they think it's nonsense are why Wikipedia is not taken seriously and not considered as a "community" anymore. 213.230.130.54 19:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Objection to deletion and closure - No concensus was achieved. Four voted for deletion and one voted against.  I know that the number of votes isn't always important (this is so that Wikipedians who consider themselves to be more important get their own way) but given the arguements expressed above why was it closed? And DO NOT delete my comments from this page again.213.230.130.54 19:55, 16 September 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.