Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewfro


 * 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 MERGE with afro, Babajobu 12:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewfro
Fails WP:V and WP:CITE. Relatively low number of Google hits makes this a violation of Avoid neologisms as well. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, neologism. gren グレン 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transiki (wiktionary) / Neutral, a google books search produced some. Problem is they aren't about what Jewfro is and won't help to write an article.  More of a dict-def.  gren グレン 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, hopelessly POV article on a neologism. N Shar 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Article no longer POV. Where (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, as above. Blnguyen 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not a neologism, I have heard this term many times in real life, it just isn't oft-used online. Certainly the article needs some work, but we aren't discussing the content, we are discussing the topic. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very well known concept that has been around for years, or at least since the 1970s. Widely used in print as attested by many sources. Examples can be seen here . -- JJay 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I question the Amazon search results as the basis to Keep this article. The results show how many times a word was used anywhere in any of the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions?) of quotes from books listed on Amazon.  Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable.  Second, regarding the claim that it has been "very well known" since the 1970s, again I disagree.  People can, and often do write about the 1970s using terms from the current era. It's necessary to see the entire context. Crunch 13:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The results are impressive because most books are not full-text searchable through Amazon and the feature is generally only available for the most recent books. Hence, books from the 90s and earlier are not going to produce many hits and, in any case, are frequently out of print. Regarding the dating of the term, I’ve found the concept, i.e. “the Jewish afro” going back to 1970. -- JJay 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Amazon search also doesn't differentiate among words used in dialogue and in other ways. All kinds of non-sensical, slang and odd words are used in dialoge. I think it's important to understand the context and not just focus on the raw numbers. Crunch 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable. Perhaps not, but it does establish quite clearly that it is not a neologism. Turnstep 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJay's Amazon Search link. Cleanup, too.--SarekOfVulcan 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Afro for now. If sufficient detail (backed up by reputable sources, of course) emerges, consider splitting it off again.  This is a legit term and not too much of a neologism.  Friday (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Par JJay's resoning. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. OK, it's not a new-coined word, but this article basically amounts to "some Jews have curly hair", as astounding as that is.  Really, there's just about nothing else that could be said about the "Jewfro".--Pharos 06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge as per Pharos - thanks to JJay for pointing that out... WhiteNight T 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Merge into Afro. Andrew Levine 08:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JJay Werdna648T/C\@ 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Transwiki to wiktionary. -- Eddie 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I seem to recall the term being used in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Once. I'm abstaining to see if anyone thinks that's notable enough to keep/transwiki. Confusing Manifestation 11:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are all comments heard in popular movies, notable? I'm not tried to be snide, just asking. Crunch 13:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as anti-Semitic neologism. Atrian 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with afro; a pretty well known term in my social circles. I know some people who have one.  Cigarette 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with afro. Not enough information for its own article -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree that it has been around since the 70s in any use other than as a minor slur or slang. It has only come into widespread use in recent years due to its use in popular culture.  The problem is there is no easy way to define it -- must someone be Jewish to have one?  How do you define who is a Jew, etc. It's not equivalent to Afro, and I'm not convinced that it's derivative in any notable way. Crunch 13:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Afro MitchellStirling 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Needs to be merged with Afro I suppose, unless someone can expand or explain how to expand this beyond a stub with verifiable, useful content. As has been said, it's hard to see this being more than a dicdef. --W.marsh 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Afro per above suggestions. Eusebeus 16:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Afro per above. Youngamerican 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Afro; the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Phoenix-forgotten 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree. I've heard countless similar variations depending on the ethnicity of the curly-haired individual, including Jewfro and Anglo
 * Merge as long as it doesn't open the floodgates for more neologism-haircuts on WP Mushintalk 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete as per W. Marsh above. Turnstep 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Afro. Keep: This article now has enough content to stand alone Where (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Afro per above. --Revolución (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Afro per JJay's cleanup as a subsection, not a hasty extra sentance it is now. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Afro. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:17Z 
 * Keep I have heard of this before and came to it curious about the origin of the term and comments about what it was. It could stand to be a bit longer. --Stilanas 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with cleanup. Deborah-jl Talk 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as above.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. -Sean Curtin 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. --Terence Ong Talk 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ---Why does anyone feel it should be merged with Afro? That is a haircut that is attributed to African-Americans, while JewFro is attributed to Jews. My point being that they are distinctly different styles so if you merge this into Afro, then it stands to logic that EVERY hairstyle should be merged into Afro. 24.187.38.113 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)GabeKaplan
 * Not really. People are just saying that a Jewfro is a substyle of an Afro and that Jewfro would not make a good stand-alone article since there is not enough material for it. Where (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and put a mention in the article on the Afro. Wikipedia isn't a slang dictionary, and even if the term is well-established (I'm not convinced of this,) there isn't enough subject here for a real article. Isomorphic 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pov neologism Dakota  ~  ε  08:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is a well-established term, but I hesitate to keep it as its own article. Grandmasterka 06:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention Isomorphic; Please state exxactly how much information or how many words an article must have for YOU to consider it a "real article". Otherwise your comment really has no basis.


 * 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.