Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibla


 * 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. Overall, the "keep" !votes are stronger. The "delete" !votes revolve mainly around a mere statement of WP:NOT; however, the "keep" !votes note that the subject is verifiable and notable and the article just needs work to make it NPOV. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Tibla

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The wikipedia isn't a dictionary of words, and not slang, particularly not foreign slang; article titles are supposed to be in English.

Given we're not an Estonian-English dictionary, please vote DELETE - Wolfkeeper  18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —-  Wolfkeeper  20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. See, I always do what I'm told. —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article surpasses that of a dictionary definition, and there's room to expand (along the lines of nigger: history, etc.). Some of the sources are enough to satisfy notability, IMO.  I see no reason why we shouldn't have foreign language slurs (providing they're verifiable and notable): the reason we don't right now is just because of our systematic bias. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article seems to invite POV problems; certainly it is problematic in its current state. The suggestion "tibla is mostly applied to a Homo Sovieticus kind of person" seems like an insult to Soviet (and perhaps by extension Russian) people rather than a neutral description of the word. That said, it may be possible to rescue this article by writing it in a neutral fashion, perhaps based on the currently cited references. On the other hand, if it cannot be turned into anything other than a dictionary definition plus some POV commentary, it would not belong here. Cnilep (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of truly encyclopedic impact beyond typical ethnic slurs.  Powers T 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The usage seems notable. Apart from the numerous sources in the article, see, for example, Words for understanding ethnic Estonians. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Dunno about this one.  "Tibla (plural: tiblad) is an ethnic slur in Estonian language, which refers to a Russian or a Soviet"--so to which does it refer?  Soviets would of course include Estonians.  I am not sure that I understand Cnilep's POV issue.  If, as the article seems to indicate, the term is used to refer to Russians, maybe, but the article also seems to indicate (contradictorily, and in the same breath) that the term refers to Soviets, and underscores this with the reference to Homo Sovieticus (like Che Guevara's "New Man" and not indicative of ethnicity or origin).  I am leaning toward wanting to keep this article, seeing as how it appears to be analogous to Gringo or Gaijin, but I'm unsure that I'm even understanding the concept that is the subject of the article.  I may strike or otherwise change my !vote if someone would be kind enough to provide clarification.  Heather (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Needs to be less POV, certainly, but outright deletion seems like a bad idea when it clearly has some significance as a concept and seems to meet WP:GNG through the level of sourcing. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (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.