Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yokel


 * 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 and cleanup. Avi 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yokel

 * — (View AfD)

Hopeless original research. Also, I believe it to be inaccurate--that is, the stereotype described is not strictly associated with the term "yokel" as opposed to various other similar terms. Chick Bowen 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. A bit more than a dicdef, and, with references for the etymology, potentially useful.  See Hillbilly, Redneck. Tevildo 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those articles are both also severely under-referenced. Chick Bowen 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the OED does not support the etymology in the article, saying rather: "Of uncertain origin. Perh. a fig. application of dial. yokel (1) green woodpecker, (2) yellow-hammer." The bit about stupid owls is a speculative invention. Chick Bowen 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the etymology of the word belongs in yokel. That's dictionary article territory.  This article should be an encyclopaedia article about yokels/bumpkins.  However, there aren't sources that actually discuss them, per se.  I cannot even find a good source for the claim that they chew straw. Uncle G 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - actually mentioned as a self-defining term in some anthropological literature, thus could be considered a sub-people group, but for lack of verifiability of the article - delete. CyberAnth 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - very common british stereotype, could use an encyclopedic treatment. As with a lot of these older british terms good references could be difficult to google up on the fly, but it shouldn't be impossible.  Artw 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - could be expanded and referenced.--HisSpaceResearch 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? How?  I couldn't find any sources.  What sources did you find?  Did you do any research to look for sources?  It appears that your rationale that you didn't.  If you did, please cite what sources you found.  Uncle G 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well known and commonly used ( at least on TV ) in the U.K. Both the Worzels and the Two Ronnies used it in their comedy shows. 145.253.108.22 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - very common term and of interest in an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. Remember Wikipedia is not Wikipedia America.  There is a worls outside of the USA. Xanucia 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. Current content is nothing more than a dicdef plus some unreferenced info plus some extreme cruft, violating WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V. The "keepers" can surely recreate this article once encyclopedic info is obtained. Since this article does not form a good basis for further expansion, it should go.  Zun aid  © Review me!  10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Problems can be cleaned up and don't merit deletion.  delldot | talk 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no sources for a subject, it is unverifiable, and must be deleted per our Deletion policy. To show that this subject has sources, please cite some.  As I noted above, I couldn't even find a good source for the claim that yokels chew straw. Uncle G 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep most of the examples here, and a good many more, can undoubtedly be verified. Since I think these wouldserve nicely as a start to improving the article, it should be kept with an unsourced tag. DGG 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article provides a place for sources, and is interwoven into a lot of other articles.  However, the etymology really needs to be verified. John Vandenberg 13:57, 12 January 2007 (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.