Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woollyback

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Woollyback

Woollyback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Was an expired WP:PROD. Restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• keep The term Woollyback is well known in the Northwest of England but I've found two or three different for its origins and even some hints that its meaning has changed over time. It deserves to be kept as a Wikipedia article for much the same reason as the American term Yankee has its own article. Several editors have edited the article in the past (I am NOT one of them) and it has stood in Wikipedia for quite some time before its presence was challenged. Deletion proposal and deletion also happened over Christmas/New Year when many editors will be away. --Hauskalainen 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)--Hauskalainen 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide or slang and idiom guide. ThePointblank (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikitionary where the article has been already been transwiked - because it's a dicdef. Or delete. But not enough for an encyclopedia article. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why the term Yankee is deserving of an article and Woolyback is not. They both seem to have contentious origins and contentious interpretations. Which is why I'd like to leave Wooleyback up on WP to see if we can get more sourced material. One cannot reflect the contentios nature of the origin and meaning in a mere dictionary entry.--Hauskalainen 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• My original rationale stands. This is not an appropriate title for a discussion of the relationship between a city and its environs; and this is not even the meaning of the word. This is a downright false article written based not upon sources but upon ignorance. This is just a general slang name, not a class of people. I encourage all of the editors who worked on this to please read a dictionary, such as Wiktionary. The correct meaning, as can be found in dictionaries, as well as (indeed) the correct spelling, can be found at woolly back, which I fixed up when this was first nominated for deletion. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Uncle G I'd certainly question your condescending attitude towards what the phrase means. Are you a native of Liverpool or the surrounding regions? I come from the city I can attest that it is an extremely commonly used phrase towards those from areas just outside the city. It has a similar meaning to 'plastic scouser' only with a less derogatory background and is commonly used in banter when talking with non Liverpudlians (e.g. No wools allowed). Now personally I'd question whether it deserves it owns article because after all it is simply a slang phrase (and nothing more). However your attitude of 'what I say is the truth and everyone else is stupid or lying' doesn't help. Whether you like it or not the phrase is far more common in this region than anywhere else. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not what I say. It's what Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, and Terry Victor say, on page 706 of their 2008 dictionary of slang (ISBN 9780415212595). In the 2006 edition (ISBN 9780415291897) on page 1350, Paul Beale contradicts the claim that this is a Liverpudlian slang term, tracing it to a railwayman's nickname instead. I encouraged you to read a dictionary and learn. I already had. Indeed, I explicitly referenced it in my original rationale. Please read a dictionary. You are building upon ignorance, not sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well given that Eric partrdige died 30 years ago I fail to see how what he says can be seen as definitive truth. The world changes, languages change, people change. How many 30 year old science books are now recognised as wrong? How many 30 year old theories have been disproved? The very fact that you seem so adamant in your belief that this word is a universal slang expression, yet from my experience (any many 1000's of others) the phrase is used in such a localised manner in Liverpool makes me believe that an article is necessary --Daviessimo (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am not a local and had not heard the term. However surely the origin relates to the IMport of wool, not EXport. England imported Austrialian and other wool in the 19th and early 20th cneturies to feed the Yorkshire textile industry. The content of the article seems to me merely to be a dictionary definition, and thus non-encyclopaedic, which would suggest deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Tavix (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep unless it can be merged into another relevant article, perhaps here An index of metals (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (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.