Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity


 * 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. PeaceNT 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Honestly, why does this page even exist? It is an OBVIOUS target for vandalism, hatred, and dishonest edits, and does nothing but hold a list of ammunition for hate speech. Jmlk 1  7  22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely agreed. This page serves no purpose on Wikipedia except to be vandalized and used as an outlet for hate speech and stereotypes. GlassCobra (Review) 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is a very easy target for vandalism. Thanks, Codelyoko193  Talk Contributions  22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and delete George Bush and vagina instead, which have long been traditional targets for massive and persistent vandalism for good. On a serious note, wikipedia spends enormous amount of articles about hate speech and stereotypes. To ignore them is being like ostrich withe head in sand. As long as hate speech exists the best way to combat it is to understand it. The page is watched by people who don't allow vandalism here. `'Míkka 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Despite the reasons above (all pages are targets of vandalism), this is a pointless, and unencyclopedic list. - Rjd0060 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: this page looks maintained and collects quite useful information, at least for non-native English speakers. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is absolutely no justification for avoiding the topic of hate speech simply because it may attract vandalism. All articles on controversial topics attract vandalism. And deleting simply out of the fear of giving offense would be its own form of POV by proxy. Dybryd 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is the topic being avoided? Have you seen Hate speech?  IMO, I don't think people are going to come to Wikipedia (which is still an encyclopedia at my last check) seeking a list of ethnic slurs. - Rjd0060 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to be ironic here. You are entitled to what you think, but I hope after this vote is closed you will understand that it is very difficult to think correctly about what the rest of billions of people want. `'Míkka 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think such an article could be very useful for researchers looking for the cultural and historical context of various slurs. Dybryd 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if these are considered "hate speech" why not merge to Hate speech? - Rjd0060 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that they are all "hate speech" -- that phrase is a modern one, often with specific legal definitions which the listed slurs may or may not qualify for. And simply in practical terms, merging a long list into another long article makes the information harder to find and navigate -- related subtopics are split into different articles for a reason.


 * A personal note -- just from scanning the article, I was very interested to learn that "gook" was derived from the Korean language by American GIs and then transferred to the Vietnamese in America's next Asian war. This sort of specific information would be much harder to find in a non-list format.
 * Dybryd 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, these articles already exist:
 * List of ethnic slurs, List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of regional nicknames, List of religious slurs.


 * Aren't these sufficient? - Rjd0060 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of them are different. I created them during the cleaning of the original List of ethnic slurs, which was a true pile of garbage at these times. Now they are maintained, duly referenced lists. `'Míkka 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What the...? What was your justification for creating so many separate similar lists? If I was looking for information I would have no clue from those titles what the difference between them was.
 * If you don't know the difference between regional nickname and religious insult, a good way to start looking for what you want is to read both of them. The majority of the terms have their own articles, so if you are looking for a "hillbilly", you will find it regardless these lists. `'Míkka 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Without further explanation of how these serve different purposes in a way that can be made clear to readers in their titles, I would certainly support a merge of these. (Note: On closer examination, it's really only the first two that seem to overlap the one nominated here).
 * Dybryd 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Without further explanation of how these serve": you must be kidding. Did you read these articles? If yes, please explain what exaclthy wwas unclear for you in descriptions of their purposes? `'Míkka 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a legitimate encyclopedic list although it could use some better references. Meets the criteria in WP:LIST for structured lists providing information through the virtue of organization. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Mikkalai. --Irpen 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't like it either but it satisfies WP:LIST. If it is repeatedly vandalized, then request for protection. If established editors fix it dishonestly, you can revert it back (with discussion in the talk page).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative, well-sourced list. The fact that an article is a likely target for vandalism is not a valid criterion for deletion. If it were, we could never have articles on abortion, atheism, gun control, Muhammad, H.R. Clinton or anything else that is controversial or about which people have strong opinions. Whether terms in the article could be used as ammunition for hate speech is irrelevant to whether it should be kept. Wikipedia is not a parent or a babysitter. Nick Graves 04:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. • Lawrence Cohen  06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with the nominator's reasons, but this should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary where properly referenced, then deleted in line with WP:NOT.--Michig 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But what would a dicdef for "Gook" look like? It would be two words: "Asian, pejor." There's a great deal more to be said. Look at High yellow (which should perhaps be added to this list) for a good beginning at the kind of article that could usefully be built off all the entries in such a list. Dybryd 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A dictionary that gave that definition would be a pretty poor one. Take a look at the definition in Wiktionary - much better than the one in this article. Wiktionary is where these definitions should be - trouble is, a lot of Wikipedia editors don't seem interested in editing it and would rather keep word definitions here, despite clear guidance against them.--Michig 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Nick Graves. Knowitall 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither the subject being listed nor the majority of the contents are notable enough to have their own (non-list) article and I don't see that listing them serves any purpose.  The same goes for List of ethnic slurs and several other related pages.  Cosmo0 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too much hate--Angel David 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow, there are just so many points for me!  Let's see...  WP:NOT then that's a week reason, then we've been through this just last week!  Um, now the page can be protected, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also per Nick Graves.  It's a well writen article, and some people hate things *cough*nominator*cough* just because they don't agree with then.   Y  ДмΔќʃʀï →ГC←  10-13-2007 • 22:48:04
 * Keep based on precedent; see    . — xDanielx T/C 07:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the "vandalism target" argument has no merit. Wikipedia itself is an easy target for vandalism.  Deleting Wikipedia because of this would result in no Wikipedia.  The only articles that aren't easy targets are protected pages.  The article on the current president of the United States is a major target for vandalism.  We're not about to delete that article based on its vandalism traffic nor its potential vandalism traffic.  All articles deserve however much vandalism protection they need.  Period.  If we delete pages because of vandalism, then all vandals have to do get pages deleted is to keep vandalizing them.  We can't empower them by giving in.  We don't give in to vandalism.  We repair it, and block the vandals.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as we've been through this AfD before, no change warranted. Bearian 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just deleted the N word from Time management minutes ago.  Vandalism is everywhere, and I for one am working to rid WP of it. Bearian 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Transhumanist. Greswik 14:50, 17 October 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.