Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddywhackery


 * 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 redirect to Stage Irish. Or wherever subsequent consensus may determine (this is the current redirect target of Irish cultural stereotypes). Whether to merge any content from the history is also an editorial matter. But consensus here is not to keep it as a separate article.  Sandstein  20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Paddywhackery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable portmanteau that may be appropriate for Wiktionary. Fails WP:NOTDICT. - MrX 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -&copy;2015 Compassionate727( Talk )( Contributions ) 12:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The concept doesn't appear to have a clear, consistent definition in the first place, and it's something for a dictionary rather than Wikipedia anyways it seems. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-encyclopaedic. WP:NOT. It may be a less than subtle promotion of the television program. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I might be able to find something for this, at least to where it could be in Wiktionary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm finding quite a bit of coverage in academic texts like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd necessarily call it a neologism, as the term seems to be in fairly widespread use in academic circles and I'm finding some evidence to show that it's been used for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask around for help on this one from the various WPs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to Irish cultural stereotypes. Searching is slightly difficult because the way the term is spelled is slightly different sometimes: "paddywhackery" versus "paddy whackery", but I have found where this term has been fairly regularly used over a long period of time. I'm finding plenty of mentions in books like this, this, this, and this. However all of that said, I think that this would be better as an overall article on Irish cultural stereotypes in general, since there is more than enough out there to warrant a separate entry aside from cultural stereotypes. Making it slightly more general title-wise would likely make it easier to find in general and feel slightly less limited (ie, we can find sourcing that discusses Irish stereotyping in general rather than one that uses this specific term). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 
 * Week keep and consider renaming I had trouble finding a reliable source that defines it; the current definition sources to a reliable source seems to be OR (see article's talk). After some digging, the best ref I think comes from Stanca Nicoleta, Hollywood Gender Representations of  Irish America in the 20th  Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan  Hollywood Gender Representations of  Irish America in the 20th  Century: Maureen O’Hara and Pierce Brosnan (may be paywalled, email me if you need a copy), which has the following sentence: "Satirical cartoons and articles exploiting Ireland - the so called "Paddywhackery" -acquired wide distribution and could be considered, therefore, one of the roots of contemporary forms of popular culture representing the Irish."  The journal is rather low tier, I think, but is still qualifies as a peer reviewed source.  There is another academic source, Walshe, Shane, 'Normal people like us don't use that type of language. Remember this is the real world'. The language of Father Ted: representations of Irish English in a fictional world   (ditto for paywalled), which has a definition attributed to  (no Google preview, thus not searchable online and only AGFable without library access): "Share defines paddywhackery as 'Stage Irish goings-on; exaggeration of national characteristics, customs or behaviour; employment of such alleged characteristics in a racist context' (2003:235)." On the regular web, this (Washington Times definition) is the best I could find; related is  (WSJ), but note both clerly attribute the word to the Urban Dictionary (which I don't think qualifies as a RS). This is not as clear, but should be helpful. I also found , but I am not sure if the site is reliable. Overall, while I think the article sources are currently poor, I think this term is notable. What may, however, be considered is whether or not this should be renamed Stereotypes of Irish people, or be just a subsection in such an article (which should also touch upon the Stage Irish topic). In other words, is paddywhackery a jargon/slang term for stereotypes of Irish in general, or only of a specific subset of them?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I agree with the rename. I think that the term itself has merit, but it's just a word to describe a topic that's slightly larger but is encompassed by the term. I'd probably support a merge to state Irish or merge stage Irish into an overall article about stereotypes of Irish people. I'd lean more towards an overall article though, since while stage Irish would be considered paddywhackery (if I understand the term correctly) not all paddywhackery would be considered to be stage Irish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (emphasis added). What we have for paddywhackery is a mere mention (often in scare quotes) in reliable sources, and slightly more coverage in sources that are not deemed to be reliable. What we're left with, then, is DICDEF. Deleting this would not prevent the creation of an "Irish cultural stereotypes" article at a later date. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we assume for the sake of argument that Irish cultural stereotypes is an article that should exist, then what would make it any different than the material that's already discussed in Anti-Irish sentiment? We seem to already have an argument on that already. Of course, stereotypes can be good theoretically rather than pejorative, I suppose (arguable, but I'll concede the point). Still, Paddywhackery appears both a poor article title for an article about those stereotypes as well as a bad redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, a good find. I'd totally support a merge of this to Anti-Irish sentiment, and redirecting Irish cultural stereotypes/Stereotypes of Irish people there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that paddywhackery is something indulged in by Irish-Americans and other people of Irish descent, and to a certain extent by the Irish themselves. It really has nothing to do with anti-Irish sentiment. Note that it is described in the article as "poor representations of Irish culture", not as being anti-Irish in itself. Do we really want to hold up "The Pogues, Riverdance, and the 1952 Maureen O'Hara film The Quiet Man" as anti-Irish? Merging this content to that article and having it as a redirect would be wrong. [Off-topic: I am changing those two new redirects to point to Stage Irish, which is properly about cultural stereotypes]. Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (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.