Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic group names used as insults (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.  An as  talk? 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of ethnic group names used as insults
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not an encyclopedic topic, and lacks references, it still lacks references since its last AfD. Until(1 == 2) 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The many contributors have evidently used a dictionary of some sort, hence the etymology of the words is explained. I'd keep as a list of words that some might not realize are offensive, or at least started that way.  Mandsford 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * hard to tell with no stated references, the article itself reads like a dictionary. Until(1 == 2) 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In the alternative, transwiki to Wictionary. Otto4711 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list is not ... like anything listed under the "Wikipedia is not ..." entries. No dictionary gives such overviews. There is a clear and limited criterion for inclusion in this list. The absence of references is generally not an argument for deletion; for the entries here such references are easily found, and are more needed in the articles referenced (such as Apache (thug), Bohemianism, etc.). --Lambiam Talk  04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of definitions absolutely violates WP:NOT. Otto4711 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be better then just to give the list and omit the definitions? --Lambiam Talk  09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one is limited, informative and provides context. Keeping this list should not, however, be used as an endorsement for existence of low quality lists. Pavel Vozenilek 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These names can change in meaning over the decades and centuries. Wikipedia must not be the benchmark as to their meaning. Gold♥  18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep everything can change in meaning over years or centuries. WP is not an arbiter of notability--we're not a benchmark for anything. Dictionaries record historical meaning changes, and encyclopedias talk about the concepts and uses of notable things, and also record the changes. Ethnic insults are generally fairly notable, there is often something to say, and changes in meaning of the items on a list like this can be indicated. Thats why lists forthings like this are better than categories, and the factor you mention is a reason to keep, not delete.DGG 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just added two entries to this list as there is nowhere else to provide such.  The words themselves link to the article with references.  There is a place for this list in the Wikipedia.  Gwyncann 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I though Wikipedia was not a dictionary? Or does voting override that? I am so confused with this place, the policies say one thing, but the votes go another way often. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep etymology and etymological practice are properly encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 25 June 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.