Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"


 * 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 DELETE. MCB 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"
This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for outsiders. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Deletion policy/Lists of words, hich was that: "Article about "Words of " may be okay. "List of words of " to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep but move to Wiktionary. As a person who travels to many foreign countries, I find this to be an extremely useful list. The only problem is, I wouldn't have been able to find the article in a search for its unwieldy title. -Amatulic 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The nom has said it has already been transwikied. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. I have struck out my initial comment accordingly. -Amatulic 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deletion policy/Lists of words -Elmer Clark 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the most encyclopedic and useful pages in the project, always ready to be added to with more helpful information for travellers. I will be sorry to see it go, since I really don't spend any time at transwikt. or whatever it is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but liking an article does not make it encyclopedic,a nd certainly not "one of the most encyclopedic". Please provide an argument. That "transwikt. or whatever it is" (did you even click the link to Wiktionary?) is our dictionary sister project. It is for words and lists of words and their definitions. Wikipedia is not. Dmcdevit·t 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I required to "provide an argument" that meets your satisfaction? Isn't my vote going to be counted anyway, and can I do without the hectoring for voting the way I did?  Are you trying to get my vote disqualified on some specious grounds, or are you just trying to intimidate future voters who might not want to be raked over the coals for speaking their honest opinion? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote but a discussion. Of course you do not have to justify your opinions, but they will be given much more weight by the closing admin if you do.  It's not a simple headcount. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... one of those deals where "some" people "count" more than others... Actually, I'm kind of sorry I got involved... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A crude way to phrase it, but sure. "I like it" does not trump policy, which WP:WINAD is.  At any rate, the article is not actually being deleted, simply removed from Wikipedia as it has already been moved to Wictionary. Resolute 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one counts more than others. In fact, no one counts at all. Only sound reasoning counts. This is why I asked for an argument. Dmcdevit·t 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, how about because only a tiny fraction of as many people are going to bother keeping up with it, or ever even see it, at its "new" location? This is the kind of policy that can be ramrodded by a small number of people with an agenda, that just sickens me about wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin: if the article be deleted (seems like) please make a good name for a category and place all list items into this category, because this classification is useful. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) comment It is very insigtful to see that there is much more defenders of the List of sexual slurs. Tells something about the prevailing mindset of wikieditors... `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in spite of (or maybe because of?) vocal support above. Danny Lilithborne 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like "spite" was more like the right word... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination.Umlautbob 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete especially since it's already at Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, also it does have a ridiculous title, probably making it very hard to find if you were looking for it. James086Talk 12:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination since this has already been transwiki'd. Beyond that, the title is misleading as many of these terms may be applied to foreigners, but don't actually mean "outsider, foreigner, or 'not one of us'" literally.--Isotope23 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thi is the reason for cleanup, not for deletion. A "title" may easily become misleading, if someone adds a buhcn of nonsense. But the solution is deleting the nonsense, not the whole article. Mukadderat 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep because the transwikied version has many red links, and therefore the whole thing has NOT been transwikied. That probably means that since most of the words in the list have articles on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, this article also belongs in the Wikipedia.--Endroit 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DeletePeople are never going to search for this title in an encyclopedia.Merkinsmum 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. Useful, informative. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. Seeing side-by-side terms from different cultures is helpful. I don't quite understand how wiktionary would handle the article. Keeping it "as is" is not a dictionary way. Splitting into zillion word articles loses the cohesiveness of the info. `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 2006 (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.