Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggerhead (disambiguation)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Niggerhead (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a WP:CFORK of Niggerhead, as it contains content that has been deleted from that page by another editor (and understandably so, as it is unsourced). Creating content forks is not the proper way to deal with content disagreements.  Sandstein  11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn following conversion into a proper disambiguation page. I agree also with what some have said below that in view of this it is probably not necessary to retain niggerhead as a separate article, but that it can be integrated into Nigger.  Sandstein   16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What disagreement? It's just that you replaced a page for another. Both can stay, they serve different purposes after all.--Deeweee (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and find sources. I'd actually propose deleting the main article instead; it's too close to a dictionary definition: "...a former name for several things thought to resemble a black person ("nigger")'s head." Having this as a disambig page makes much more sense. Yunshui (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is necessary to put a historically archaic English reference into modern day, current perspective. I see no reason to censor history, and if we fear history we are doomed to repeat it. 98.154.21.247 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate isn't about censoring history, or the possibly offensive nature of the term (see WP:NOTCENSORED). This discussion is over the relative merits of a disambiguation page. The original article Niggerhead is not up for deletion (although, per my comment above, I think it should be). Hope that makes things a little clearer. Yunshui (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge, and clean up. I'm not sure the discussion above has focused on the appropriate content of a disambiguation page. The purpose of such a page is to direct readers when there is more than one Wikipedia article that might reasonably use the same title.  Here, there clearly is a need for a disambiguation page, since a reader who types "Niggerhead" in the search bar might be looking for an article about the Australian island, or the termite, or the cactus, or... you get the picture.  However, there also are a bunch of items on the list that do not direct readers to any Wikipedia article, and these should be removed.  The article that has usurped the title Niggerhead is unsourced for all practical purposes, bordering on a dictionary definition, and obviously afflicted by WP:RECENTISM.  Unless there are reliable sources that can be cited for the historical origins and usage of this word as a place name, there is no basis for an article on that topic.  Therefore, this disambiguation page should be kept, moved back to its old title, and cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as modified. I've changed this unsourced essay-slash-dictionary definition into a legitimate dab page. It should stay that way. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The remaining article Niggerhead SHOULD be brought to AfD and deleted, by the way. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 4 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.