Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasi'chu


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasi&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP policy says that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think that's a good policy in general. I also think that it should be considered more when the word in question is not used much in English and when its meaning is not clear, as in the case here when the first sentence says it means "white people" and the second says it does not refer to any racial group. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment or tirade It is a reflection of the pride and/or narcissism of "white people" that we like to read about how much other people hate us. It makes us feel important. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do we know the article wasn't added by a Sioux? —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You could be right. However I think it is mostly white people who will be reading the article. I don't think that Sioux need to go to WP to find out the meanings of words in their own language. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah! Nowhere in Wikipedia policy is there an allowance to anticipate the ethnicity of the readership. That's really uncalled for. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I thought it was a fair observation. Check out the article White people and its related template. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just white people. Almost everyone tends to be terribly interested in something someone says to insult them. Borock (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or, if possible, merge into e.g. Oglala Lakota. I see no evidence for standalone notability or importance of this word/concept. GregorB (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term "wasichu" comes up in 5,270 published books through Google books and gets 17,700 google results over all—it's well represented in secondary, published sources. "Wasichu" is more commonplace than "wasi'chu," so a name change might be appropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary Someone65 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The word is part of popular culture - I can easily find more references for its usage. Category:Ethnic and religious slurs demonstrates that the article has good company. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep- Reasonably sourced article on a notable ethnic slur. Not even close to a simple dicdef, and notablity is met by the sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sourcing is a good start, and there appears to be more complexity to the term than simply being race xs nasty term for race y, as many of our slur articles boil down to. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP seems to have a tradition to keep articles on ethnic slurs. This seems to be because they give some insight into social history. Another factor might be that this is something WP is able to do better than other sources, since we anonymous editors can't be fired or sued. :-) Borock (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As a rebuttal to the WP:WAXy repetition of WP:DICT: See Gaijin. If you choose to point exactly where in relation to the line between dictionary and encyclopedia this article is, and why, and why content could not be added to make it more encyclopedic, go right ahead, we're still waiting. Otherwise you are just throwing acronyms at the wall and hoping one sticks. Anarchangel (talk) 22:55, 6 February 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.