Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash talk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ned (Scottish)
See Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC) If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the assertions of Squeakbox, 9/7 is by no means a consensus. The previous AfD was closed as a keep by another admin and this decision was changed by Squeakbox two months after the initial closing of the AfD. Although the two terms bear some superficial resemblance, they are by no means the same. The use of "ned" pre-dates "chav" by at least forty years. --GraemeL (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)

Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Northern Irish version is a 'spide'. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not true. This is the place to discuss it if it needs to be redirected, SqueakBox 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The deletion policy is here: WP:DP. You want to put merge tags on Chav and Ned (Scottish) and discuss the move on the article talk page. Pilatus 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable term that is used in Scotland as an equivalent to the English Chav and Irish Scallywag. Piecraft 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It was me that reverted the redirect, not Pilatus (who I assume the comment was directed to). Personally, I have no problem with you taking the issue back to AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It may interest you to know that England and Scotland are also separate countries; They just happen to be part of the same state. Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. --GraemeL (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I am English but I respect the indisputable fact that Scotland is a nation with its own culture. By the way there is no such thing as a "marginal consensus" only a marginal vote, which is not a consensus at all. CalJW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why does everything that is distinctively Scottish have to be homogeneised and fitted in to an English perspective of the planet? Variety is the spice of life. For another example of this linguistic levellerism, see Talk:Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is distinct to Scottish culture, irrespective of similar expressions that may or may not exist in other Britannic cultures.--Nicodemus75 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neds are particularly and peculiarly Scottish, in the way that Bogans are Australian. There is no such thing as an English Ned. Average Earthman 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol.  That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles.  See below.  Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, and you aren't citing sources for your bald assertion. Again, I point to what I wrote below. Uncle G 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, shouldn't the article be called Ned (slang) or something more obvious?--nixie 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people.  For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words.  (See chav and what it links to.) The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one.  We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things.  (Witness gasoline/petrol, squash/marrow, and so forth.)  This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word.  The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same.  That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.  Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk.  The articles are perennial original research magnets.  (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.)  These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments &mdash; bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support.  I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources.  Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Neds are a different group altogether. Typical Anglocentricism.  Why not merge chav into Ned? Vizjim 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, as nobody at all wants this deleted, including the nom. Slap a disputedmerge tag on both pages, and argue about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Neds, Bogans, Hoons, Westies, Scallywags, Chavs et al. Fight Saxon imperialism! Grutness...  wha?  04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the ned phenomenon has a depth which appears to be lacking in these chavs come lately, and is well worthy of an article...dave souza 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Neds are distinctly Scottish and predate chavs on the evolutionary timeline by quite some distance. -- Cactus.man >Reply 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * merge with Chav. They might be slightly different, but the differences will be best explained by having the two on one article rather than an extensive duplicated comparison on different articles. Thryduulf 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If anyone needs merging, it is the chav newcomers. Both articles should be kept separate though, as there are enough substantive differences to merit this. Leave wur neds alone ;-) --OorWullie 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Unless of course you want to merge Chav with White Trash because those are identical terms, but Chav is mearly used in the UK rather than in North America --Colin Angus Mackay 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Personally I think the definition of Chav, at least as given in the Wikipedia article, is much less precise, and also that article is subject to a factual accuracy dispute at the present time. That dispute, for me, is enough for me to support keeping the articles separate for now. The term Chav, as used in England, is much more wide-ranging than ned, being used to label anyone who is alleged to demonstrate poor taste in their choice of clothing, motor vehicle or lifestyle, even if that person of royal blood (Prince Harry). OTOH, "Ned" is a much more precisely defined term, covering mainly teenagers who are almost exclusively working class. English teens with a similar lifestyle are only one part of the amorphous Chav grouping. If the Chav article is improved then I might support a merge, but not at the present time. -- Rugxulo 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Un-merge. Definitely distinct from chavs. --Meiers Twins 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September, yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I can't find the previous AfD discussion to check User:Squeakbox's assertions, it just keeps coming back to the current AfD page. Anyone have the correct link to the old page? Cheers. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion is here. Squeakbox did link it at the top of this discussion. It was closed as "keep, strong suggestion to merge and redirect." by admin Dmcdevit·t on July 27. For some reason, Squeakbox decided to overrule that decision two months later. --GraemeL (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius
 * Keep and recognise charva as a totally different thing too. How do you reopen these deletion votes? I never got a say on the last one.


 * Keep and Un-merge. Is it not time we wrapped up this strand and just get on with un-merging the Ned content that was prematurely tagged on to the Chav article?--Mais oui! 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as separate article. Notable also for the political fallout when Rosie Kane (Scottish Socialist MSP) said the term should be avoided. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and unmerge. The term is in widespread colloquial use in Scotland,among all classes. It certainly deserves its own article. Its not as if we are going to run out of pages, and it prevents suprprise when someone follows a link and ends up in an apparently unrelated article. --Nantonos 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Up
Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  20:28, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.