Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyp (slang)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE, I will also transwiki it. Babajobu 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gyp (slang)
Slang terms have no place in Wikipedia. Shouldn't this be in Wiktionary? Eddie.willers 04:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Actually "gyp" already is in Wiktionary. However, this defintion contains a bit more information on the etymology.  Perhaps it should be merged into the Wiktionary entry. - Nortonew 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary entry already contained the etymology, with the same hyperlink to the same WorldWideWords article, four months before this article was even created. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate. It contains one sentence on etymology and then the link. It's a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It's not designed, nor should it be, to deal with cultural/historical subjects like this.--T. Anthony 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It contains one sentence on etymology and then the link. &mdash; And that's the same hyperlink to the same article as here, as I (quite accurately) said. cultural/historical subjects like this. &mdash; That's a fallacious argument.  There is no cultural/historical subject being dealt with by this article.  It's an article about the word gyp, plain and simple. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the debate about whether or not "gyp" is an ethnic slur is something I heard about before I ever went online.--T. Anthony 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Discussions of alternative and disputed etymologies of words belong in the etymology sections of the articles on those words in the dictionary.  Wiktionary is not paper. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm switching to just keep. It might not be doing it now, but a history of this word and of its use could have value. I've heard of entire papers on this word. I think there are words and phrases that can merit an article rather than just a dictionary entry. And although Wiktionary is not paper, Wikipedia isn't paper either. Looking at Category:Slang many words that less deserve an article have one. For example Huzzah or Cowabunga. I think this should be given time to become a real article.--T. Anthony 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A "history of this word" belongs in the dictionary, in the etymology section of the dictionary article about the word. Wiktionary is not paper.  Wiktionary has "real articles" too!  You are conflating "short" with "dictionary article".  That's wrong.  The two are not synonymous.  Please do not support the waste of time and effort that is the creation of dictionary articles in the encyclopaedia.  Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia, and Wiktionary is the dictionary.  Please do dictionary work in the project that has the goal of creating a dictionary. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me, especially as you don't do it very well. A long page on the use, history, and controversy over this word would not belong in a dictionary or wiktionary. I don't want to write that article at 5:25 AM Central Standard Time, but I'm sure I can write it at some point. We have articles on all kinds of words, something you failed to acknowledge or respond to. So tell me why issues concerning this word merit an article less than the other words in Category:Slang. If you can't do that, don't bother lecturing me again.--T. Anthony 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A long page on the use, history, and controversy over this word would not belong in a dictionary or wiktionary. &mdash; Rubbish. Articles on words that discuss their etymologies and their usages are exactly what Wiktionary is for and explicitly wants.  Yet again, you are conflating "dictionary article" and "short".  Wiktionary is not paper, and welcomes long discussions of etymologies.  Furthermore: I've already told you about Category:Slang, its mis-use, and the Wiktionary category where dictionary articles on slang words properly belong, below. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think you are being a snot, but I'm no longer as certain this belongs in Wikipedia. In an Encyclopedia perhaps it would, in Wikipedia perhaps not. Whether you like it or not there are cases of issues/history concerning words being of historical enough importance to merit an encyclopedic article. You can whine and pout against that all you want, but it doesn't really change that. Or change that there are numerous such word/articles already. I think this word does merit that, but admittedly just barely. This is a case though of Wiki versus reality. In this case "What Wikipedians can do or find interesting" maybe does make this invalid.--T. Anthony 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's really nothing here beyond a dictionary definition. Durova 08:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Merge with the Wiktionary entry. KrazyCaley 09:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing here to make the effort of transwikification worthwhile. Wiktionary gains nothing from this content being transikified.  Wiktionary already contained the etymology, with the same hyperlink to the same WorldWideWords article, four months before this article was even created.   If you want to expand the Wiktionary article, edit Wiktionary directly.  Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a dictionary article about the word gyp that has been placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Wiktionary already had an article four months before this article was even created.  Delete. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary // OR redirect to Roma People.  &mdash;This user has left wikipedia  12:43 2006-01-23
 * Transwiki to wikitonary. --Terence Ong 13:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't this be in Wikipedia? It's in Category:Slang, which has a hundred eighty other entries, as well as several subcategories. And it doesn't read like a dictionary article. Keep. Fg2 07:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary is our official policy. Although greatly mis-used, that category is supposed to be for encyclopaedia articles about slang (such as Boston slang, London slang, and so forth), not for dictionary articles about slang words.  (This article does read like a dictionary article.  Read some dictionary articles.  In particular, read gyp, which is a dictionary article that contains everything that this article does.)  The category for dictionary articles about slang words is Category:Slang on Wiktionary. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Misleading. It's one sentence and then a link. Wiktionary is a dictionary. It's not set up to deal with issues concerning the political/history controversies over words. Why should it be? Granted this has been around for months without much expansion, but this isn't necessarily meaningful. This article doesn't concern computers, slang common to under 30 year olds, or the religious/political groups that are common here. There should have been longer warning.--T. Anthony 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now that this was tagged since September. Well possibly no one who can deal with this subject is going to appear. I've appeared, but I'm not sure I'm qualified. Still my objections mostly stand. This is one of those "It doesn't matter to Wikipedia, but does matter in the real world" type issues.--T. Anthony 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a dictionary. It's not set up to deal with issues concerning the political/history controversies over words. &mdash; Rubbish.  Wiktionary is quite able to deal with discussing disputed usages and disputed etymologies, and for some words already goes into detail about such things.  Etymologies and usages are normal fare for Wiktionary.  Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fg2 Wisco 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read our Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe this person has done that.--T. Anthony 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And now that I've read it I can say your objections don't apply. This article isn't and doesn't have to be about how to use this word or its definition. Added to that what you site mentions articles on words so they are acceptable. It also isn't geneology, etc. Like I said it's too late for me to write a good article on this word, one at the level of Indian giver can possibly be done in time, but still it can be done at some point.--T. Anthony 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is exactly about the word and how to use it. There's nothing in the article that isn't dictionary article content already covered by the Wiktionary article, as I've already pointed out, and as Cryptic points out below. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what it is, but it has potential to be more than that. As you can't deal with what I say on related word/articles you mostly just repeat the same plattitudes. Still I'm not as interested in this. You can delete it and then if I find the appropriate papers/books on the word I'll recreate it later.--T. Anthony 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Definition, etymology, usage, more etymology. Zero encyclopedic content.  Belongs in Wiktionary.  Already there.  Why is this contentious?  Delete unless someone rewrites it into an encyclopedia article, which I don't think is possible; certainly none of the content currently here will help in doing so. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - note that we do have similar articles - for example, Nigger. However, an article about the word ought to be included if there are significant debates centered on the word - whether it is offensive, how people ought to react to it, etc. In this case, however, it seems like there is just not enough encyclopedic content to fill an article. --Pierremenard 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the useful bits into Wiktionary (if any). Delete this leftover.  It is a good dictionary definition but nothing more.  I see little possibility that it can be expanded past the lexical content.  The fact that we have not yet cleaned up other inappriate articles about words does not convince me that we should perpetuate the mistake here.  By the way, I have no objection to the replacement of this page with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry.  Rossami (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef. mikka (t) 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: see also swot, chilling, porker, ugh, Template:Vocab-stub &mdash; Miles&larr;&#9742; 21:59, 28 January 2006 (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.