Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry (derogatory term)


 * 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) -- M P er el  18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Harry (derogatory term)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dicdef plus rambling, unsourced, original research about a Norwegian slang term.  Dei z  talk 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Borderline dicdef with only one source in the whole article, meaning that it may not even be true ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: as dicdef. Beyond that, this is the English Wikipedia, and a casual scan shows that we don't have articles on other foreign language insults.  (That aside, it is true, it seems; the Norwegian Wikipedia's had an article on this for a few years.)   RGTraynor  15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've now corrected the interwiki, so that it points to the correct Norwegian article (no:Harry (slang)) and added one more source (dictionary). This article is a straight forward translation from Norwegian Wikipedia. The content is gotten primarily from the book mentioned, but this word is so well-known for Norwegians that sources have not been required for some of the statements (that would be like requiring a source on "hello" being a greeting in English). Of course I do fully understand that things are different here on en.wiki, and I understand that it is a problem that no more sources where added when the article was translated. Still I hope that the fact that it has some sources, that it is translated from another Wiki and that it is, according to the history of the no.wiki article, written by people who I know is familiar with Wikipedia, should be sufficient. --EivindJ (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This was previously discussed at Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_22 following a disputed prod. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete again per nom.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)
 * Keep Aspects of history and culture give the article encyclopedic notability. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep more than a dicdef, an explanation. DGG (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Articles like this provide with interesting nuances into folklore aspects which are hardly found anywhere else in English.--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Two sources are given which constitute some notability, but much more should be given.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (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.