Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murzyn


 * 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. For all the words in this debate, the consensus is quite clear that the article is to be kept. Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Murzyn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies: WP:ENGLISH WP:DICTIONARY (see my comment at my vote below) --Lysytalk 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Twice over.  WP is not a dictionary and doubly so not a Polish language dictionary. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not all words are notable, but some are. What makes it less notable than entries in Category:Polish words and phrases and Category:Exonyms? The discussion of the word by Kłoskowska or Piróg seems to suggest it is notable. On a side note, it would be nice if the author would learn how to format references properly (cite templates...) and avoid the humongous quotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a toponym. Regarding notability, you could easily find a source in Polish on cucumbers in Lesser Poland. Would this warrant an article titled ogórek (Polish for cucumber) on English wikipedia ? Would the fact that the Polish source discusses "ogórek" in Polish make it more notable ? --Lysytalk 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for ogórek, however I think that we could use a dedicated article on Polish pickled cucumbers. Pl wiki distinguishes those from pl:ogórek konserwowy, and if there is no established English name for it, we may end up having an article on ogórek konserwowy on en wiki... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there may be a reason to have Racism in Poland but no need to have an article on Murzyn, Cygan, Żyd, Chińczyk, Grek, etc. --Lysytalk 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about a correct name for the article, this already suggests a keep vote (and a RM to start). Some words are encyclopedic, their usage is studied by scholars. The sources I noted above suggest this is one of them, and that it is of interest to scholars, just like Negro or similar words - even if it is much less researched. Also, I think we should have an article on Żyd, dealing with the word meaning in Polish language (analyzing the stereotypical image of the Jew in Poland through the use in proverbs and such) - although it could be a section in some larger article. Murzyn could also exist as part of some article describing words for black people in different languages, but as we are most likely missing them, keeping this one seems like a reasonable outcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually a very good illustration of the problem. If we could separate the article Żyd, concerned with the actual word, from anti-Semitism in Poland, it would be fine. The problem is that it's very hard to avoid having both articles discussing the same after some time. The same with Murzyn, we claim it explains the particular Polish word, but I'm sure it will have the tendency to evolve into Racism in Poland, which should be a separate article. But if we create it we would end up with two differently named articles with more or less the same contents. --Lysytalk 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is a notable word like negro, sambo (racial term), nigger, nigga and indeed Polack. The sources presented show that in Poland there is a considerable amount of academic and general societal discussion surrounding this word (whether it is racist and whether it should be replaced by other words). That's why I noticed it in the first place. It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland, has a long history, and deserves coverage. That it's from a foreign language is neither here nor there (see Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour and many other foreign words found in [Category:Ethnic and religious slurs] and probably other categories). I have the strong feeling certain editors object more to the airing of dirty linen, than to this article's actual encyclopaedic worth. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First Malick78 is the creator of the article so he is, understandably, fighting to keep it. Second, Malick78, you're assuming that this word belongs in the "Category:Ethnic and religious slurs" - it doesn't, it's not a slur. All the examples you gave above (Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour) are in fact slurs, and in each of these cases an alternative non-offensive word exists. Here "Murzyn" pretty much IS that non-offensive word in Polish. Yes, there are some people who are saying now that it's outdated and politically incorrect - more or less the same way that some people think that the term "black" in English is politically incorrect relative to "African-American" - and there are other people who say it's not but until a new word comes along and gets established this is just a standard translation of the word for "black person" in Polish. The fact that Polish academics are discussing the etymology of a Polish word is not sufficient for an English wikipedia - Polish academics discuss the etymology of lots of Polish words. You say " It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland" - but that's precisely why it belongs in Wikitionary not Wikipedia.  Volunteer Marek   20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it deserves to be kept because it's a slur. I just found some foreign words (sure, slurs) that had articles about them, in order to show that foreign words are worthy of English language articles. I fully realise that it's a multi-faceted word with many interpretations, and therefore needs in depth examination to fully appreciate the complex nature of it. Hence an article ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, here's a video of Poland's first black MP John Godson discussing the term on Polish state TV with a black Polish musician. Does the word 'ogorek' get this kind of coverage? The comparison is completely inaccurate. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: here's a source comparable to the one used for "cycki murzynki": Czas na ogórki!, here is a video prominently featuring ogórek and providing the rich cultural context Ogórek wąsaty, here is a political article about the role of ogórek in European Union policies: Unia przegrała z naturą, about ogórek's presense in Polish parliament:Efektowna konferencja, and here is another vital info, mentioning the "day of ogórek" Dlaczego ogórek nie czyta ?. The word "murzyn" does not even have its day.  --Lysytalk 11:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of those things are about cucumbers, not the word 'ogorek'. In your excitement at finding such a wealth of information I think you may have got a little confused and off-topic. As for the link to "cycki murzynki", that was to prove it exists. You know it exists, all Poles know it exists, so a link to something about it was just a courtesy. Malick78 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I only wanted to demonstrate that it's absolutely easy to find obscure or irrelevant sources. Relevant RS might be a problem, as it is in the case of murzyn. --Lysytalk 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's even a research paper on ogórek by the famous Pirog: and there are many more ... OK, enough ;) As for "cycki murzynki" it's the first time I've heard of it so this was educative as well. --Lysytalk 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * keep&mdash;yes, wp is not a dictionary, but any word that is rich enough in conceptual content to inspire sufficient numbers of reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a topic (as opposed to merely using it) satisfies the gng, and we should have an article on it. i would take this position even if the article lacked sources, providing i could find sources, but in this case, there's no need to do that since the article is impressively well sourced.  the article is well written, and convincingly makes the case for the notability and encyclopedicity of the term. i also find Malick78's comparisons with articles on other racial slurs to be quite convincing. these are exactly the kinds of words that turn out to be notable, and are exactly the kinds of words that need both definitions in a dictionary and entries in an encyclopedia&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article rather discusses racism in Poland than the Polish word. How about renaming it to Racism in Poland ? Looking through the "sources", they are either obscure, bogus or irrelevant. It's possible to write a similarly "impressively well sourced" article on almost any Polish dictionary word. --Lysytalk 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't read polish, so it's true that i can't evaluate the quality of the sources as i would be able to do if they were in english, but it strikes me that your dismissal of them is too sweeping to be completely accurate. the one by Antonina Kłoskowska is clearly reliable, and the one by Patrycja Pirog certainly appears to be so, if the translation is accurate and the source is, as it appears to be, the proceedings of an academic conference.  these two alone seem to me to be enough to satisfy the gng.  i think that as it stands, the article is actually not about racism in poland, but about the word itself.  the sources seem to discuss the word, not racism in general.  if some of the other sources don't strike you as reliable, you could edit them out if you wanted.  it wouldn't be possible to write such an article about almost any dictionary word in any of the languages i know.  is there something special about polish in this regard?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sources are obscure, but most of them are simply irrelevant. The video is a promotion of an anti-racist children book, the Żakowski article is about smoking and the author uses "I'm black" in the sense of "I'm being discriminated", the article by Pirog is about the connotations of black people in Polish art and culture (that's also what the conference was about). I cannot comment much on the text of Kłoskowska as it's not available online, but its title "Nation, race and ethnicity in Poland" suggests that it discusses racism rather than the actual "murzyn" word. Likewise the text by Ziółkowski is about the racist stereotypes in the US. I will not comment on the quality of the sources for cake recipes. --Lysytalk 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not have articles on the translation of the term "black person" in Russian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Chinese, etc.?  Volunteer Marek   20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The video is not promoting the book, if you watch all 7 minutes you'll see it's about the use of the word 'murzyn'. Do you think that a Polish MP would come on the show just to promote the book? And why do the two black men start arguing? It's about the connotations of the word and how black Poles should be described. Please don't describe the sources inaccurately when not everyone here speaks Polish and can understand them for themselves. I would disagree with your descriptions of the other sources as well. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kloskowska source is online and the relevant part is basically a footnote.  Volunteer Marek   20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Try Google Books search for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim". Unfortunately, most Polish books just give us a snippet view, but a quick overview suggests there are more sources available (if not easily online yet). Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Volume 32 from 2006 seem to have at least several pages on this word (one quote: "Ustalając konotacje semantyczne zbiorowe, odnoszące się do nazwy Murzyn, a które zakorzenione są w świadomości zbiorowej użytkowników języka polskiego, opisać należy nie tylko frazeologię i paremiologię, lecz i inne aspekty kształtujące..."). The article currently is poor and could benefit from better refs and more research, but the more I look into this the more I am convinced the subject is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is applicable in this case. Of course Polish linguists study this word, just like they study other Polish words - maybe a bit more. Additionally, most of the hits seem to be to (unavailable) sources which are picking up the word "pojecie" "jezyk polski" etc. Searching for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim" with quotation marks gives zero hits. Same for variations designed to increase the number of hits, , - all no hits. Even looking at the search w/o quotation marks  which one of these sources is actually discussing the word itself, rather than using it in some completely unrelated context? None as far as I can see. I mean some of them are just translations of English language works about completely different topics - like translation of John Stuart Mill which obviously has nothing to do with how the word is used in Polish.   Volunteer Marek   20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one ("also" to what?) is a "maybe" - it's a Polish linguistics paper. So yeah, not surprising that Polish linguists would discuss a Polish word. But that's not really enough here, since that's what linguists do. The second one looks better, particularly since it's in English. But again, it's a linguistics publication - apparently about Slavic languages. So this too would support the inclusion of this type of entry in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. The bottomline is that you can find these kinds of sources on almost any word, English, Polish, or other. Again, why not have an entry on how "black person" is translated into Russian, German, Hindu etc.?  Volunteer Marek   22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really quite simple. There are no academic articles about the word ogorek. Murzyn has dozens. That's why it's notable. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait what?!? Where are these "dozens" of sources? Even the article now has only 13 sources over all and half of them are junk (somebody's webpage with some recipe on it, some opinion piece about smoking, letters to the editor etc.). And they're not academic. You got 1 sort of "academic" source which deals with it. You got a few academic sources which mention it in footnotes or passing. And you got one, maybe two, sources which are "academic" in the sense that they are articles by Polish authors about Polish linguistics. Quit making stuff up.  Volunteer Marek   22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes a word notable? If it is studied by the linguists, and touches upon sociological issues (discrimination, stereotypes, and so on), that seems to make it notable to me. It would be easier if we had Notability (words), though (but we have a user essay, linked). But even the generic WP:N seems to suffice; the word received coverage in numerous, reliable sources - and I see no exception there that would make linguistic works not reliable for our purposes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

<- Ok, I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it's obvious that Polish linguists will study the etymology of Polish words - and you can find sources (in Polish) to that effect. That is NOT enough to show notability for the purposes of English Wikipedia, IMO.

But let's come back to this " coverage in numerous, reliable sources" - IT'S NOT THERE. Malick78 filled up the article with a bunch of junk he found on the internet consisting of things like:
 * Letters to the editor, from a newspaper. Not a reliable source.
 * Somebody's online cooking recipes. Not a reliable source
 * Somebody's blog. Not a reliable source but this one was actually written decently enough that I left it in for now.
 * An article about smoker's rights which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.
 * An article about the Oscar awards which uses the word in passing. Irrelevant to the topic.

The last two, or even four, are just random usages of the word out there in the internets. They are not reliable and they most certainly do not show notability - just the fact that people actually use this word sometimes (crazy!)

What's left after you remove this junk? What are these supposed "dozens" or "numerous" reliable sources?


 * A link to a Polish dictionary - which actually just shows that this belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
 * The source by Klosowska, which *I* was the one who put that in, trying to make something half way decent out of the mess that was in there. Importantly, this "source" for the word is a ... a one sentence footnote. Other than that it is again irrelevant.
 * That whole "OPPOsite" website and Patrycja Pirog which is really all that you have here. It's a goofy source (post-modernist writing nonsense) but I guess it does qualify under the heading of reliable sources. This is listed separately in the article's reference section 4 or 5 times, giving it an appearance that it's numerous sources being used, where it really is just one.
 * A link to a tv interview by Poland's black MP who says he doesn't think the word is racist. Ok, relevant but by itself not nearly enough.

That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.

The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it.  Volunteer Marek  17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have a PhD, where did you get it? I want one from there too! Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't act like a stupid asshole. You've just dismissed everything I said with an obnoxious off-topic comment which is obviously meant to be insulting. Sort of speaks for itself.  Volunteer Marek   16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And you try to stay civil. Otherwise you might get in trouble, like you have been before (you are the editor-formerly-known-as-Radeksz from the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, aren't you?). Malick78 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, if you're gonna make personal attacks on people and make obnoxious comments then you have no right to demand that they "stay civil" towards you - you've given up the right to that kind of consideration. I could've reported you for that PhD comment but it's more time-efficient and to the point just to call you on it.  Volunteer Marek   18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Surprised keep. Those who know of some of my previous AfD activity may be surprised to see this, but this is a good example of an article about a word that actually has valid encyclopedic coverage.  I will point to this article in the future as an example of what some of the truly horrendous dictionary entries we have here should look like.  Powers T 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per comments above. This belongs in Wikitonary, not Wikipedia. Author of the article is trying to make the term seem more controversial than it really is by cherry picking sources to make it seem more notable - in an encyclopedic sense. Move the whole thing to a dictionary.  Volunteer Marek   20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * it's hard to see how anyone could cherry-pick in order to make something seem notable. what would they do?  omit mentions of sources that don't discuss the topic?  if there are reliable sources that discuss the topic then it's notable.  a place for cherry-picking opens up if there are opposing views on an already notable topic and someone doesn't give a balanced account of that. that's how the term is usually used.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Volunteer Marek. No cherry-picking was needed. The first articles I found were all about the controversial nature of the word. Not many people write about words to say how unexceptional they are :) Malick78 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In a way this actually addresses alf.laylah.wa.laylah's objection. It's a relatively - though not completely - uncontroversial word. So yeah, the only sources you're going to find are going to be ones which say it's controversial (and write down, that's basically 1). The people who think it's not controversial are just not going to write articles about it. So to answer alf.laylah.wa.laylah's question - yes, that's what cherry-picking involves here - not mention all the sources which use it in a controversial way.  Volunteer Marek   22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so if I say Obama is a woman... can I back it up by pointing out the lack of webpages devoted to his female nature? Because, hey, if no one bothers to write about it, it must be something uncontroversial that everyone knows. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually a pretty good example. It's as if you started an article on The femaleness of Obama and then claimed that it was a notable concept because you found some post-modern studies article (singular) (and I am certain that such exists) about Obama's femalness. And then claimed that it made the topic notable. And then said "well, I can't find any sources which say that don't deal with Obama's non-femalness, therefore the concept is notable". ???  Volunteer Marek   22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * find the sources, write the article, and i promise to !vote keep when it appears here.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you missed the point ;) --Lysytalk 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The "Murzyn" article provides substantial information on a notable topic, and the information is too extensive to fit in a dictionary.  Comparable articles on use of analogous terms in other languages would also be welcome.  As an electronic encyclopedia, Wikipedia can accommodate topics that might not be considered in a paper encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Upon a closer examination of the article, I'm changing my mind, and I support keeping it. Maybe I should have withdrawn this AFD now but first of all I don't know how to do that, and secondly, let's have it completed for the sake of future doubts like mine. At the same time I would like to apologize Malick and everyone involved for the time wasted on the afd :) --Lysytalk 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Out of interest, what finally swayed you? Malick78 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cycki murzynki. But seriously, some minimal research that I've done trying to verify some claims of the article. My initial impression was that this is yet another vanity article by a frivolous editor and that the term itself is trivial. However I've realized that the word actually does not translate well into English, and has an interesting and dynamic semantics. The article has some potential to develop, possibly into something different, which I perceived at a threat but hey, evolution is the spirit of wikipedia. Still, I stand that the sources are poor or irrelevant, but I've seen worse :) --Lysytalk 08:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the article has inspired somebody to research the subject :) As for the sources, hey, if I'd written a perfect article I'd feel bad that I'd left nothing for anyone else to contribute ;) Malick78 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what wikipedia is for ... --Lysytalk 11:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cycki murzynki? Now I feel like WP:RFD this. Is this cake even notable? I admit I've never heard of such a cake... Who is going to search for it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Check google. I was surprised myself. Apparently Malick knows more about this cake. Myself I'll try to find and try some. --Lysytalk 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a real cake, sure. Available in many places around Warsaw, though 'murzynek' is more common. Malick78 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Some words are notable.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt: I can't see any possible reason to have an article in English WP about a racial slur in Polish or any foreign language, especially when a corresponding article under that heading does not even exist on Polish WP. Sometimes, a foreign language slur may become familiar to English language speakers, like the Japanese "Gaijin", but this clearly hasn't happened with "murzyn". Not by a long shot. The subject of the article is Polish-language-specific at best and totally lacks any global relevance or significance whatsoever for English language readers (except those that also know Polish, and then exclusively because they know Polish). Most of the sources are of dubious relevance and reliability, trivial or tangential; a Christian on-line newsletter, passing references in newspaper articles on completely unrelated topics, a dictionary entry for a cake with a similar name and the like. The only reliable sources that discuss the term in any detail are all entries in Polish language dictionaries. Delete per WP:NAD, doubly so because the term is practically never used in English except perhaps among Polish speakers. As for the argument that the word is notable because of the the "controversy" that surrounds it in Poland, that's simply balderdash. I've been living in Poland for nine years, speak Polish, read the Polish press and am rather conversant with what is controversial and what is not in Poland. The "controversy" surrounding the word is not particularly notable even in Poland (again, as the lack of an article on Polish WP demonstrates). Not notable enough, by any means, to warrant mention in English WP. The fact that this word has been discussed by Polish scholars doesn't mean much as much the same can be said for thousands of words in the Polish language. That discussion also has very little global relevance outside of Poland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I in contrast started the article because, while living in Poland and conversing with my young, educated Polish friends, have noticed that the word has a controversial status. As for 'global relevance', that would suggest deleting all articles on Polish villages, non-ministerial MPs, barely-read-outside-Poland books... etc. Wouldn't deleting these be deleterious? Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How conroversial, compared to Ojciec Dyrektor, Smoleńsk, lustracja. in vitro or the American visa question? It certainly doen't make the Top Ten list of controversies in Poland. I'm not that sure it makes teh Top Hundred. See, it's a matter of degree. Now do you think it's notable enough to incude on English WP. Also, the other types of articles you mentioned have their own sepaerate criteria for inclusion in WP. None of those criteria apply here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the fact that the white majority haven't quite twigged that racial terminology is important doesn't mean that it's not. But actually, I do think it makes the top one hundred :) And a Polish MP bothered to talk about it on TV... Think about that: it's hard to get them to do anything :) Malick78 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hard to get a Polish MP to talk? You miust be kidding. It's all they ever do. Endlessly and ceaselessly about any kind of bullshit under the sun, including Tinky Winky. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The threshold for inclusion on WP is whether multiple reliable sources have discussed the topic in depth. (WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") Here are some instances. is a 10-page journal paper entitled “THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' HAS DONE HIS JOB, MUST THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' GO? THE HISTORY AND THE FUTURE OF THE WORD 'MURZYN' IN POLISH” and its abstract includes the sentence “There is a repetitive question coming up in publicist sources, how to replace 'Murzyn', if Polish is to follow western languages, in which the word Negro has come out of usage.” Another source is entitled “A NEGRO DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO...'. A STUDY OF SOME ETHNIC METAPHORS’  – its abstract states “The article reports on research whose goal is to analyze the image of black people in the Polish press after 1989. The aim of this work is a presentation of 'ethnic metaphors' with the lexemes 'Murzyn' (Negro), 'czarny' (a black man), 'Kali' (the name of a black hero in the novel 'W pustyni i w puszczy' by Henryk Sienkiewicz), 'Olisadebe' (the surname of a popular African football player, a member of the Polish national team) and others.”  Those two articles are pay-to-view, but their abstracts speak to the in-depth coverage point. There is a derogatory form, ‘’murzyny’” as mentioned in the book ‘’Slavic gender linguistics’’  . This article  about a Polish explorer, Sygurd Wisniowski, says: “In nineteenth-century Polish, "murzyn" functioned as a semantically neutral designation for "one belonging to a black race. African or American negroes"; its general application was possibly consistent with nineteenth-century anthropologists' attempts to create a terminology to categorise human races-"negro" being one such term. By contrast, Wisniowski's references to Maori employ a more varied, semantically structured set of terms, in which "Murzyn" features only once. Its use in "...parlament, w ktrym zaden Murzyn nie zasiada" [the parliament in which not one Negro serves] is significant in that it highlights both the absence, and the improbability, of any non-European serving in the New Zealand Parliament. As such, it functions as a statement of the inherent inequalities in the system of colonial government and of the author's perception of the European colonists' treatment of any indigenous population simply as another dark-skinned (and therefore unequal) people. In that context, "Murzyn" appears to issue from the mouths of the settlers, and thus could justifiably be translated as "nigger." Put together with the Polish MP’s statement and other material already in the WP article, this strikes me as meeting the notability standard. Novickas (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Has encyclopedic value beyond a dictionary definition.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep An article about the significance of a word that can go beyond the definition is always justified, if there is enough material--as there certainly is here. That the subject term also is found in dictionaries is not reason it would not be here: under that reason, we'd have to remove--among about a million other articles-- the article on Poland. And that the Polish Wikipedia  has no corresponding article doesn't affect us if we can show the importance--the different encyclopedias have different coverage guidelines, or perhaps they haven't gotten to it yet, and will now.   I'll just comment on two particularly misguided deletion reasons: one, that we ought to cover topics (including words & concepts) in Polish any less than we do English. We're the encyclopedia  written in English, covering everything in the world notable enough to have an article for which we have people willing to do the writing--just as do other Wikipedias. Fortunately, many of the people active on other language Wikipedias are active here also, Polish being an excellent example of that, and we are in a better position to take advantage of that than some other Wikipedias may be.   And another misguided reason that is fundamentally behind some of the delete opinions for words like this: that we do not cover topics which make some particular group look bad--that we might not want to recognize the fact that a particular language has a opprobrious term for outsiders; this is a failure to recognize the basic nature of   NPOV and NOT CENSORED. The world includes a lot of unpleasant things, and they're part of the domain of an encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (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.