Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (3rd)


 * 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. John254 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While still sourced, it's a bunch of dictionary definitions and not really suited for Wikipedia Will (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Move to Wiktionary. No doubt some editors will want to keep this here 'because it's useful' but this information should be in Wiktionary (where properly sourced), not Wikipedia. See WP:NOT.--Michig 11:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This page has seen this twice now, and I beleive it's useful (and no I'm not racist). Let's go over a few key points from the last two, that I agree with.


 * "...Fans of linguistics/etymology will probably agree. Some of these words are not even offensive/used any more("Tojo", "3/5er"), but the history of how and why they came into use is still important/interesting..." The point here is that it is useful.


 * "This list is a remarkable work, comprising over 1400 entries written since June 2003. Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available." Here the user is saying it's had quite a bit of work, and just like me we beleive the article is comprehensive.


 * "Dictionaries don't sort entries in this way." self explanitory, but I strongly agree. They don't look that much at all like this, anyone pick up any dictionary and look for a list of see here's with a few hundred words.


 * "Wikipedia's list is an invaluable source of information, especially considering the regional nature of most epithets. Web readers should not be forced to troll the internet searching random, nefarious web sites in search of racial understanding." Wow how great, and I'm starting to wonder if just personal opinnion was involved in deleting along with political correctness. Yamakiri 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If one were to post the entire discussion, it would be a book. Mandsford 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is actually the FIFTH go-round for this article. Before the first and second AfD discussions, this process used to be called "Votes for Deletion", and it survived two "VfD" discussions in 2004.  Note:
 * Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs/Archive of previous VFD, September 18, 2004
 * Votes for deletion/List of ethnic slurs, December 22, 2004
 * Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs
 * Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs (2nd nomination)
 * Keep Per previous AfD noms. Nothing has really changed that justifies this list to be deleted now, while it was kept previously.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete/transwiki - still just a bunch of dictionary definitions. Well-sourced dictionary definitions are still dictionary definitions and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And how is Wikipedia not a dictionary? There are a ton of articles on non-offensive regular words, punctuation, origin of names, and origin of letters in wikipedia.--Pilot expert 04:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It promotes bigotry.Operating 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, suggest speedy keep per established precedent. Nothing has changed, and this has been repeatedly nominated and never deleted: well past time to accept the outcome and give it a rest.  (The claim that it "promotes bigotry" is hard to fathom; do pages on anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism do the same?) - Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to Mandsford and Smerdis: "Not again..." isn't a real reason to keep - plus, the last AFD was over twelve months ago (and yes, I was aware it was the fifth nomination). Will (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep even though WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Extremely offensive to the point of repulsive, but is notable, well-sourced, linked to other articles, and encyclopedic. Bearian 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are not a dictionary, slang guide, repository of trivia, et cetera.  RFerreira 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Keep this article. It may be offensive to some people but it is very informative and educational.--Pilot expert 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that NOTCENSORED is basic to WP, consensus is not likely to ever change on this one. DGG (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ethnic slurs are unfortunately notable, life impacting, and worthy of useful coverage in wp. Furthermore, 5th attempt at deletion is a waste of time. Policy hasn't drastically changed to justify another attempt. Horrorshowj 09:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ethnic slurs do occur, and it's useful to be able to understand not just what group someone is insulting but the cultural context and implications of their insult. Simple definitions are for a dictionary, but the level of explanation here is encyclopedic. I would advise a strict WP:Attribution policy for individual entries on the page, though -- this article doesn't need insults that were used once in an obscure context, or that the author just made up. Inhumandecency 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the contributors to this discussion might like to take a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  You may also like to take a look at Wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs, which is where the (properly sourced) information in this article should be found.--Michig 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. A number of words on the list have additional encyclopedic information, beyond definition and etymology, which is not appropriate for Wiktionary. Nikola 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep some of the ethnic slurs have an additional cultural impact beyond their simple definition or etymology, that is encyclopedic Bleh999 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article differs from dictionary material in many respects: its depth, its thematic nature, and its cultural relevance. It also provides historical and cultural information that is rarely found in a dictionary. One (reparable) difficulty I see is that the article often doesn't identify derogatory terms as such. Similarly, terms like "may be used" are potentially harmful and misleading, because the entries are generally seen as inappropriate words that shouldn't be used. I suggest alternatives such as "sometimes used". As an aside, I think some of the folks using "arguments to be avoided" here may partly be suggesting that they are good arguments and should be permitted. Valerius 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wiktionary does not house articles like this well, and this goes beyond definitions.    Randall Bart    Talk   04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Just because some people don't like the fact that these slurs exist, doesn't mean it's unencyclopedic. Moving them to Wiktionary would remove most of the point of even having these around, because it's more than just a bunch of definitions: it's an unofficial "record" of the history of racism. Maybe not palatable, but perhaps inciteful into the darker side of cultures past.Agharo 01:06, 26 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.