Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is completely redundant - the material within it is covered in List of ethnic slurs which is a more complete and more importantly - better sourced - article. The whole concept of the page is badly described in the introduction and seems to be inherently POV. The fact that the lead in contains phrases such as "or downright insulting and racist manner in the English-speaking world" - which sound bias and unencylopaedic indicate that whole whole concept of the list is questionable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not contain "Usage guides or slang and idiom guides" per policy (WP:NOT). Guest9999 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. It is sorted by ethnicity. List of ethnic slurs is sorted alphabetically. Until we have DBMS engine in wikipedia boith lists play their navigational role, because the list is quite long. `'Míkka>t 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But where does it end - do we really need multiple articles containing the same information listed in different ways? How many lists of Ethinc Slurs could be created - listed by prevalence, by country of origin, by first usage, etc. Guest9999 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment I think the way this list is sorted is very reasonable, but I agree that there doesn't need to be two different lists for the same kind of information. But there are sortable wiki tables that could solve this problem. See for example 2007_Eurovision_Song_Contest. – sgeureka t•c 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - t's an informative, and most of all, well-sourced list. The fact that an article is a key target for vandalism is not a good or even, valid criterion, for deletion in my opinion. If it were, we could never have anything informative on ethnic hatred, atheism, abortion, sexual reproduction, homosexuality or other LGBT related facts: just because it is controversial doesn't mean delete. Also, the fact that the article hasn't been edited that much since the last AFD or has been the subject of much discussion, suggests to me the nominator hasn't done the right steps in deciding whether this should be at AFD or not. R udget zŋ 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At no point in the nomination was it mention that the article was a target for vandalism - I agree that would be a bad reason to delete an article. It was the reason given in the first nominatiom but that should not predujice this one. Guest9999 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Sorry, I must have mixed it up with another AFD I was previewing. But, I still standby my decision to keep the article. R udget zŋ 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of ethnic slurs. The material is redundant and having different ways of sorting isn't a sufficient reason to have two versions with slightly different content. These lists are vandal-magnets and the fewer of them we have the easier they are to maintain. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - whilst I think the article should be deleted I do not think that being a vandal target is any kind of reason to justify deletion. What would Wikipedia be like if Wikipedia just removed content that was frequently vandalised. There wouldn't be articles on George W. Bush, Chickens or Lard. Deleting an article because it is frequently vandalised would be letting vandals dictate content on Wikipedia and I don't think that would be acceptable. I do still think teh article could be deleted as it just replicates the content of another better sourced article. Guest9999 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep Well sourced. Vandalism concerns are not a valid reason to delete. Rray 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, vandalism concerns were not mentioned once in the nomination. Guest9999 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

COMMENT - At no point in the nomination were concerns over vandalism mentioned as a justification for deletion. Vandalism is not a good reason to delete a page; however not meeting policy and being the duplicate of another page may well be. Guest9999 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment Oh, you're a big talker. Mandsford 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Sorry, I was getting a bit frustrated by people replying to an arguement that wasn't made. Guest9999 12:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep Depending on the list, sometimes a sortable table is best, sometimes a separate article. At this point is not not seem obvious how to convert this to a sortable table. DGG (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would suggest merge the other text here, alphabetical ordering is much less informative. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valuable for a number of academic reasons. Kingturtle (talk) 15:21, 20 November 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.