Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger in the woodpile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (no consensus). TigerShark 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nigger in the woodpile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
IP 172.141.83.47 placed entry on relevant talk page requesting keep - prod moved to AfD as per. My personal vote is a Delete. RedHillian 12:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what is the reason to delete it? The article has appropriate references, though these could be better. It needs some cleanup and improvement, but its not far enough from a decent article to warrant deletion. The opening paragraph looks like a dictionary definition but the inclusion of the film discounts that. It appears to meet notability requirements since it is the subject of multiple independent discussions in reliable sources and more exist (and should be added). The term is indeed offensive, but Wikipedia is not censored. Gwernol 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original prod was from Angusmclellan, and quoted A dictionary definition but wikt:nigger in the woodpile already exists and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I placed prod2 as per original nom. --RedHillian 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although the original prod was placed before the movie and recent usages sections were added. Adding these sections makes this article more than a dictionary definition. Gwernol 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — the article consists of a definition copied directly from somewhere, and two pieces of trivia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of idioms. Rosenkreuz 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears like a dicdef. Any etymological trivia can be added on wiktionary. I don't agree with Gwernol: there doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article struggling to get out of this. I'm not of the view that it's offensive, although that was presumably the original intent. The relevance of censorship passes me by. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, just adding "They made a movie with this title" doesn't mean it's not a dictionary definition anymore. If you feel you can make an article out of the film title, go for it. As it stands, though, it's just a dicdef. (and I kind of wonder why the "Wikipedia is not censored" defense was brought up when nobody claimed it was offensive in the first place) --UsaSatsui 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I brought it up along with a number of other points, was that at the time no reason to delete had been given. I simply ran through all the possible objections I could imagine and pointed out where I believed they did not apply to this article. Gwernol 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, at least partially not a copyvio (some parts may be). Which leaves no real reason for deletion. WilyD 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which you haven't addressed. Uncle G 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to address, since no reasonable person could construe this as a dictionary entry. Perhaps it read as such before I first saw it. But it doesn't read like a dictionary entry now - I would have thought "encyclopaedic" covered Not merely a dictionary entry, I must have been mistaken. WilyD 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article gives the meaning of and etymology of an idiomatic phrase. That's a dictionary article. An encyclopaedia article would discuss the person/concept/place/thing/event that the phrase denoted. Uncle G 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to address, since no reasonable person could construe this as a dictionary entry. Perhaps it read as such before I first saw it. But it doesn't read like a dictionary entry now - I would have thought "encyclopaedic" covered Not merely a dictionary entry, I must have been mistaken. WilyD 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which you haven't addressed. Uncle G 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- dictionary definition copied out of other people's dictionaries (okay, quasi-dictionaries). ReasonablePerson 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopaedia article would discuss the person/concept/place/thing/event that the phrase denoted - which this articles does, which is why it's encyclopaedic and not merely dictionaric. WilyD 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The N term is offensive generally. Its use here is less so. The page could be reformatted as a movie article with a cultural note. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- This one's hard, but I gotta say delete. Not because it's offensive, but because it comes off as a dicdef - and a poorly formed one at that. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an article on the origins of an interesting phrase does not constitute merely a dicdef. -Docg 12:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary: An article on the etymology of an idiom is exactly dictionary article territory. You are most likely thinking that the article cannot be a dictionary article because it isn't a short, 1-sentence long, article. "Short" and "dictionary" are not synonyms. Don't let what one can find in "pocket dictionaries" fool you. An article is a dictionary article when it gives (one or more of) the meaning, etymology, usage, inflections, pronunciations, translations, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, derived terms, and so forth of a word or an idiom. A non-stub dictionary article can be quite long. This article falls into that category. It doesn't discuss the person/concept/place/event/thing that the word/phrase denotes, which is encyclopaedia article territory. It gives the meaning of the idiom, discusses its etymology, and points to some modern usages, noting the connotations of the idiom. It nowhere discusses important facts that are not disclosed, the concept that the phrase denotes. Uncle G 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this is a phrase, not simply a word. The history of its origins and usage is encyclopaedic. Do normal encyclopedia contain such things? No, but then they are pretty low on Pokemon characters and High Schools.--Docg 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionaries contain phrases. --Dennisthe2 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this is a phrase, not simply a word. The history of its origins and usage is encyclopaedic. Do normal encyclopedia contain such things? No, but then they are pretty low on Pokemon characters and High Schools.--Docg 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary: An article on the etymology of an idiom is exactly dictionary article territory. You are most likely thinking that the article cannot be a dictionary article because it isn't a short, 1-sentence long, article. "Short" and "dictionary" are not synonyms. Don't let what one can find in "pocket dictionaries" fool you. An article is a dictionary article when it gives (one or more of) the meaning, etymology, usage, inflections, pronunciations, translations, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, derived terms, and so forth of a word or an idiom. A non-stub dictionary article can be quite long. This article falls into that category. It doesn't discuss the person/concept/place/event/thing that the word/phrase denotes, which is encyclopaedia article territory. It gives the meaning of the idiom, discusses its etymology, and points to some modern usages, noting the connotations of the idiom. It nowhere discusses important facts that are not disclosed, the concept that the phrase denotes. Uncle G 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete directly copied from elsewhere and dicdef. Also, racist. SakotGrimshine 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and that the definition explains the term - so while the term is indeed racist, it gives an etymology behind said term. (Regardless, my "delete" above stands.) --Dennisthe2 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep It's really quite simple. WP is not censored. Now un-used slang that would now be considered racist is included. In fact , even contemporary racist slang is included, if material for an encyclopedic article can be found. There is much else to say, including comparisons with similar slang in various countries, and a look at likely pre-Google era material should find quite a bit. DGG 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making that argument. Nobody is saying it should be censored. In fact, it's the keep voters that keep bringing up the censorship issue (making it really hard for me to assume good faith). Simply because we don't censor things doesn't mean that everything potentially vulgar is instantly notable. The issue at hand is whether or not this article is a dictionary definition, or whether the article is notable. I believe that it is, and it's not. Adding a history of the word doesn't make it any less of a dicdef, and while a movie from 1904 is mentioned, there's absolutely nothing about it on the page. This "movie", by the way, is 10 minutes long and there is nearly no information about it over at IMDB (the only source provided for it). --UsaSatsui 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have noticed a certain frequency of dicdef as the objection when some topics come into play. agreed it can be more complicated, but I also said that for something used so widely, print sources are findable, and they will add depth to the discussion in the article. DGG 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - referenced phrase that is more than a dicdef. VegaDark 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Angus. 24.107.194.216 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, offensive but sourced and beyond a dicdef. Mallanox 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.