Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep and moved to User: RGloucester/Argentine, not Argentinian. The ones advocating deletion argue against the policy itself. However, those who supporting keeping the page, regardless of how they feel about the point itself, have policy support that we keep historical essays. As stated at Policies and guidelines, "Essays, information pages, and other informal pages that are only supported by a small minority of the community are typically moved to the primary author's userspace. These discussions typically happen on the page's talk page, sometimes with an RfC, but they have at times also been conducted at Miscellany for deletion (despite the MFD guidelines explicitly discouraging this practice) (emphasis added). Regardless of RGloucester's statements here not wanting the page, RGloucester started this essay and seemingly advocates for it, so rather than hunting around to find someone, it's moving to his userspace. The deleted history at User:LlywelynII/Argentine is right, User:RGloucester/Argentine, User:Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:It's Argentine, not Argentinian amongst others shows that RGloucester is the one who keeps moving this to Wikipedia space regardless of the fact that there's no consensus for this essay (and the extent to which it's been moved in inappropriate arenas). RGloucester is seemingly the only advocate for it and (1) can keep it there or (2) if the editor doesn't want it, after this page is moved, RGloucester can have it deleted by author request indicating that there is no support for this essay (or tag it as historical). (3) Else, RGloucester can go hunt for someone that supports his policy and will host the page. - Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Argentine, not Argentinian


Wikipedia is not a prescriptivist encyclopaedia. This essay makes no cogent argument that "Argentine", contra "Argentinian", is the "correct" demonym. WP:ESSAY does not excuse the promulgation of ill-informed opinions or blind prejudice - unless, of course, the page is tagged as "humorous". Alakzi (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly the essay could be improved, but when I read the reason above, I thought this MFD page was being proposed for deletion! Essays can prescribe things, and we can choose to ignore or accept it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a cogent argument for deletion either – Wikipedia is obviously prescriptivist in its writing (as are all reference works), and users are free to be as prescriptivist as they wish in non-article space. If you don't like it, why don't you write Argentinian, not Argentine, and maybe eradicate some of that "blind prejudice" you're talking about.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  12:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not prescriptivist in its writing; it borrows accepted writing standards. Whether those standards may arise from prescriptivism is a different matter altogether. This essay would've been acceptable if reputable sources asserted that "Argentinian" is non-standard; they do not. It is intellectually moral that unsubstantiated advice is removed from public light. I've no interest in writing a counter-essay - and nor have I ever claimed that either form is superior. Alakzi (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All essays are "unsubstantiated advice". The catacombs of the free encyclopaedia are not "public light". God knows what you mean by "intellectually moral". I think your primary rationale for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and after that you're just winging it.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  04:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do make an effort to understand before hurling personal attacks at me. Alakzi (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding linguistic prescriptivism. Having a manual of style is a far cry from saying that a particular word is "correct". -- Irn (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except our MOS frequently distinguishes between "correct" and "incorrect" uses – of words, punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, etc. Arbitrary prescriptivism is only unwarranted in article space; in the Wikipedia namespace (and the user and category namespaces, too), prescriptivism is omnipresent.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  04:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding it or just not familiar enough with all of the MOS, but I see the MOS as prescriptivist only insofar as use on Wikipedia is concerned (i.e. "this is what is correct on Wikipedia") whereas this essay doesn't limit itself to prescribing a consistent in-house style; it broadly dictates what is "the correct demonym" always and everywhere. -- Irn (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." That text should clarify the status of the page. It makes a point about the usage of a pair of terms, but it is a point that may be accepted or ignored, as this is not part of the manual of style. In fact, we do have essays that propose to do an action and other essays that propose to do the polar opposite action, such as A navbox on every page and Not everything needs a navbox, or Call a spade a spade and Don't call a spade a spade. By the way, there was a similar discussion some months ago at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian (or, actually, a "move war" that I settled starting that discussion). Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What an obtuse misreading of WP:ESSAY. Of course user essays should be minimally informed. The issue is not with the popularity of the viewpoint, but whether any effort has been made to validate that viewpoint. Alakzi (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, it all comes down to "Delete this essay because I don't agree with it". Cambalachero (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with it, but that's besides the point. The author authoritatively states that "Argentine" is the only correct demonym and adjective. This is clearly not the case, as "Argentinian" enjoys widespread usage, both in literature and the media, and it is found in reputable dictionaries of the English language, such as the OED. If the essay were to be rewritten to state that "Argentine" is more common, and should therefore be preferred, that would be fine; but it flies in the face of our core mission to be spreading what is essentially a falsehood. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – "Argentine" is the standard form. The opinion is not "ill-formed", but is supported by most major style guides and etymological history. 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs)
 * There are literally thousands of English loans which have been altered to conform with English-language grammatical and phonological norms and could be said to be etymologically "incorrect". A cursory Google search for "style guide Argentine" has not returned any relevant results. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I really don't like this essay, and I really don't like the way its essay status allows it to avoid scrutiny and insulates it from criticism for being poorly-sourced and poorly-argued. (Check the page history and the talk: page to see how attempts at improving it are dealt with.) While I recognize that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, the other side is little more than WP:ILIKEIT. (I don't see any cogent argument in favor of keeping it.) I think part of the problem is that there basicaly are no guidelines for inclusion regarding essays. I would like to see this essay deleted, but I don't know that policy supports that position because I don't see any clear guidelines on what constitutes an appropriate essay. At the very least, I do think this essay should be moved to something along the lines of "Argentine, Argentinian, or Argentinean", which would better reflect its contentiousness and allow for arguments to made and challenged. -- Irn (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to challenge. The purpose of the essay is to express the opinion that "Argentine" should be preferred, as it should, and as it is by style guides. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that were true, I might concede. However, that's not the case. An opinion would be arguing that Argentine is more elegant or a better translation, not that it's the correct demonym. Calling it "correct" is not an opinion; it's a statement of fact, and it's wrong. (That's not how English works.) If it were correct, there would be no need to write an essay arguing in favor of it. -- Irn (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a "correct" is a matter of opinion, not of truth. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of collective opinion. The word is used by millions and is found in leading dictionaries; it cannot objectively be "incorrect". Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as objectivity. Anyway, many words are used that should not be used. "Argentinian" is one of them. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the definition of "correct" that you are using renders it an opinion, you need to improve your word choice. Perhaps "best" or "most accurate"? -- Irn (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There are very few reasos to outright delete an essay. If it is an attack page, if it blatantly misrepresents policy, or if it is simply a ball of lies, then sure, delete it. If it is the creation of a sole user and clearly represents only that user, who gaurds it against any changes by others it is suitable to force userfication instead of having it in project space. None of thse seem to apply here. Essays are for exactly this, expressing opinions. They serve a purpose in that if the matter keeps coming up again and again one need not endlessly repeat their arguments, they can simply refer to the essay which explains them in detail already. Whether we agree with a particular essay or not is simply not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would call it "a ball of lies", but it is rife with factual errors. For example, "Argentina" is, in fact, a noun in Spanish. (It's also an adjective. It depends on the use.) Referring to the country as "la Argentina" doesn't make "Argentina" an adjective. (That argument makes absolutely no sense because articles modify nouns.) Even if that were the case, Argentinians do refer to Argentina as a noun (see, for example, "No llores por mí, Argentina"). Further, even if that argument were valid, there's nothing redundant about "Argentinian" because English use is not determined by the Spanish. And "Argentinian" did not enter English at the end of the 20th century but rather the middle of the 19th century. -- Irn (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The word may have "existed" in the 19th century, but it was not common usage and was extremely rare until the late 20th century. "Argentina" is an adjective in Spanish, which existed before the country. Whilst the word "Argentina" can now be used as if it were a noun, this usage is merely a colloquial dropping of the nouns that are modified by the adjective "Argentina", i.e. tierra or república. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument here does not reflect what is in the essay. If that's what the essay is supposed to convey, it needs to be written more clearly. (And with sources for any factual claims, especially ones regarding "common usage" and what is "extremely rare".) My above point was that the essay is full of factual errors. Those errors remain, and your refusal to acknowledge the fluidity of language (i.e. what was once an adjective meaning "silvery" has long since become a noun referring to a country) doesn't change that. -- Irn (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy. I wouldn't suggest outright deletion, as I don't think this is violating any policies; but judging by the comments here and on the talk page, the position promoted by this essay is sufficiently contentious that it shouldn't be presented as 'the voice of Wikipedia'. It should be presented as the opinion of one particular editor (RGloucester), which is what it is. Essays don't have to be universally agreed with, they can promote positions; but when they do they should make clear that they are expressing an opinion, whereas this one presents as fact what is plainly disputed. It belongs in userspace, not Wikipedia-space. If it's to stay where it is, it should be renamed and rewritten to present the full range of perspectives on this question. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, on the actual subject of the essay: I'm too ignorant about Argentina to know who's correct here, but I somehow got the impression that 'Argentine' is considered faintly pejorative, or at least old-fashioned, and 'Argentinian' is the more 'politically correct' version preferred in modern English. But I could be entirely misinformed.) Robofish (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally misinformed and inherently idiotic. Don't comment if you've not done any research. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy An essay containing the user's own opinion can not be in the Project namespace. It should be moved into the userspace of the main contributor. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want it, so don't put it in MY userspace. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You made the bed. Ogress smash! 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ESSAY, opening line: "Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain information, advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors".  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  04:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as weird prescriptivist attack essay. This reeks of the usual Olde-Fascionèd comments that RGloucester writes (such as this gem that asserts that freedom of panorama is inherently liberal because liberal means what I say it means) and doesn't need to be in WP space. Ogress smash! 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what "liberal" means by any definition. Liberalism is about freedom, which is why it is derived from the word "liberty", which is the latinate equivalent of the Germanic word "freedom". If you don't know what liberalism is, I hardly think you are suited to be commenting here. The essay does nothing other than express a well-reasoned opinion, adhered to by most journalist style guides. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is demonstrable false given the usage of "Argentinian" by reliable sources, to wit for example. Essays based on one man's opinion may be acceptable, but not when they're innaccurate. Also of note is this essay's high rank on Google searches for "Argentinian"; we shouldn't let this stay in Wikipedia's voice. The reason why I say delete and not userfy is because it fails WP:NOTESSAY, which prohibits the publishing of original research such as the one in question. Calidum T&#124;C 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Highly prejudicial, ill-informed and terribly written. Both Argentine or Argentinian are fine and commonly used. Argentine is British English. You might as well write an equivalent essay that "Aluminium, not aluminum" is correct with the shortcut WP:NOTALUMINUM.  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Argentine" is not "British English" ( 1] please don't cite unreliable blogs 2] see recent NY Times article). It isn't OR, either. The sources are cited. "Argentine" is the most common and most correct form, in both varieties of English. There is no OR here, merely correctness. I like that a little crew is following me about. How pleasant. Damn you to Hades, twice. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reported your personal attack to the ongoing ANI against you. "Damning someone to Hades" (twice, no less) is not acceptable. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the Wikipedia namespace should not be used for essays that give bad advice, as it gives it a false air of authority. That it falls into the common "Anglophones don't know how to speak English" prejudice that crops up commonly in proper names in The Americas is extremely bothersome.  At best, this is somewhere between ill-informed and un-informed.  At worse, it's outright bigotry.  It shouldn't carry Wikipedia's name like a stamp of approval.  Wily D  11:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? This is the traditional English form, that has been used since the inception of the country's existence. You're the only uninformed one here. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that major dictionaries disagree with RGloucester! Who is uninformed?
 * Oxford English Dictionary, the gold standard: American and British English definitions are identical: Argentinian: Of or relating to Argentina or its people; A native or inhabitant of Argentina. Same definitions are given for "Argentine"
 * Merriam Webster: Argentine/Argentinian are both correct
 * Typing in "Argentine" at the Cambridge dictionary redirects to Argentinian (note this happens if you search under American English OR British English) : Argentinian = belonging to or relating to Argentina or its people; a person from Argentina (also Argentine)
 * Collins dictionary: Argentine = a native or inhabitant of Argentina; of or relating to Argentina. Also Argentinian
 * So, should we believe the fine folks at Oxford and Cambridge that both are equally correct? By the way, when you do a Google search for "Argentinian" this incorrect essay is the first thing that pops up! It's simply an embarrassment. If RGloucester wants to put this essay up on blogspot somewhere then they have that right. Nobody will put up a fight. But I don't see why they should be given a soapbox on Wikipedia. There are standards that Wikipedia essays must meet and this fails. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries do not comment on correctness, they catalogue usage. One can find an extremely obscure word in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean that it should be used. No dictionaries disagree with me, because dictionaries do not deal with style. You need to look at style guides, which comment on usage. It is sad that you cannot admit to resorting to unreliable blogs. You've already demonsted your uninformed nature by positing that "Argentine" is British English, which was swiftly disproven.  RGloucester  — ☎ 04:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Correctness of language is predicated on usage. It is not a very difficult concept to understand. And no, we're not going to debate epistemology. Alakzi (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion, this essay is pedantic and dogmatic, but it just an essay. It is one editor's opinion. It is neither a policy nor a guideline, and no editor is obligated to comply with its conclusions. We provide wide leeway for any editor to write an essay related to improving the encyclopedia. There can be no doubt that RGloucester believes, quite firmly, that the "Argentine" usage is correct. He is entitled to both his opinion and his essay. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Userify in its current state. If it is retained in wikipedia-space, rename to Argentine or Argentinaian? and add a section explaining why the latter is acceptable and accepted (Essays in wikipedia space are open to such editing). Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - People are entitled to their opinions, and may write essays as much as they like, but this one is factually incorrect, as the evidence from the dictionaries shows. Factually incorrect info may not be presented knowingly and wilfully to the readers of an encyclopedia. Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Essays that present the personal opinion of a single editor, without clearly recognizable support in some wider circles of Wikipedians, of very limited scope, and little or no basis in widely recognized Wikpedia policies, should exist in user space, not project space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the user doesn't want it in his userspace. Userfy, as it's a personal opinion. We shouldn't delete it, as it hardly breaks any rules. Peter238 (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The author has said that he doesn't want it in his userspace. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Userfy is more appropriate here, but since User:RGloucester doesn't want it on his userspace for some reason, Delete seems to be the only appropriate alternative. This extremely opinionated view may be acceptable as an essay, if it were only that; instead, its edit history and that of its Talk: page strongly suggest that RGloucester is erring on the side of stubbornness, straight-up ignoring and reverting any attempt at improvement of the essay. And while the author's argument starts off sound, it quickly crashes and burns in a mess of hasty justifications, leaps in logic, and insistent assertions in place of references. Many agree that dictionaries are not on his side here. Strong revisions—either in content or in word choice—are needed, but if RGloucester is unwilling to cede to these measures, I vote Delete. —87504325340295a (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — 87504325340295a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. User:87504325340295a sums it up right and I agree with his/her entire conclusion above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a single valid reason to delete or userfy this essay. WP:WPESSAY rightly states that "essays may range from personal or minority views", and that "disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single right version". Moreover, WP:NOESSAY makes the point that essays tend to be deleted or transferred to user space if they have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever, violate one or more Wikipedia policies (such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not), or contradict or subvert policy; that isn't the case here, at all. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: the author has stated in this discussion they do not want it in their User space. Ogress smash! 21:55, 7 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.