Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets
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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take equal parts neologism and dic-def, stew in POV sauce and you have this page. It's a place holder for dubious, rarely used cruft from U.S. political wars (Democunt?!) an insufficient number of which are sourced and I think qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of info. And no, for the people who are concerned about POINT noms with lists, this isn't an effort at POINT. Specified, scaleable lists have a place. I don't believe this qualifies. And to forestall "but we need this page as a re-direct target," pages stay or go on their own merits. If you'd like a page on Communist epithets, OK--that would be specified and scaleable. Marskell 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If some of the epithets listed are not notable, then remove them. Firebug 12:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make one final point given the predictable rash of keeps. An entry: 1) Gets a para in which case it deserves a stub and isn't needed on the page (an appropriate category properly serving as its placeholder) 2) Gets only a sentence in which case its a dic-def 3) Is a neologism and doesn't belong to begin with. Marskell 13:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems ok. Grue 12:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting article, but maybe requires a more NPOV, but keep
- Keep. This seems to have a balanced POV — that is, that there are around equal amounts of every political sentiment and every kind of epithet in here. If not, then please add the POVs that you think are missing. In the case of dic-defs, this article has plenty of room for expansion, and there's plenty to be said on the subject; add a sentence or two. Remove neologisms, of course. By the way: if you expect a "predictable rash of keeps," then why nominate it here anyway? It appears you already have an idea of what community consensus will be. Jacqui★ 14:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of room for expansion at 70k? It actually makes more sense to break into five or six articles. Also, I can expect a keep consensus and still entertain the possibility of a delete and nom with a cogent reason. Marskell 15:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can, but it clogs up the very busy AFD. And the 70k can be reduced by tightening the prose without removing much in the way of information. Jacqui★ 15:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a 186 sections. "Prose tightening"? No, spin-off articles where possible. I think logically it can be spun off to the point where a category can fulfil its functions--as I say, Communist epithets makes more sense than a List of political epithets. If we're going to keep listcruft we should at least make it precise. Marskell 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can at least agree to spin-off articles, if you'd like, but I still believe this article should exist as a more comprehensive overview. Jacqui★ 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a 186 sections. "Prose tightening"? No, spin-off articles where possible. I think logically it can be spun off to the point where a category can fulfil its functions--as I say, Communist epithets makes more sense than a List of political epithets. If we're going to keep listcruft we should at least make it precise. Marskell 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can, but it clogs up the very busy AFD. And the 70k can be reduced by tightening the prose without removing much in the way of information. Jacqui★ 15:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of room for expansion at 70k? It actually makes more sense to break into five or six articles. Also, I can expect a keep consensus and still entertain the possibility of a delete and nom with a cogent reason. Marskell 15:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but massive clean-upit needs a working definition, and a pruning of nn and not particularly political terms. References are lacking here - and I suspect some of the terms are no more than bloggers' neo-logisms. --Doc ask? 15:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to delete per Klonimus attempt to clean this up are being reverted by its 'owners'. --Doc ask? 13:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - very interesting. Needs tons of work, though. But IMO, it's worth it Renata3 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and trim. Gazpacho 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but update - to common/current terms 17:36 26 Novenber 2005
- Keep and edit. To be on the list, a term should be, I think, a significant part of public political discourse--things like "democunt", which due to its obscenity is absent from most places except for hard-core right-wing circles (as well as similar insults used by the left to slander the right) probably should be axed. --EngineerScotty 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed that term on the grounds that it was uncited and lacked notability. (I've participated in weblogs and political Usenet groups for quite some time, and never heard it once.) Firebug 18:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Overly long and ough to be busted out into a category and individual articles. This article also suffers from several major problems.
- "ownership" problem where a small clique of editors guards there prefered version.
- "political correctness" sloshes about all over the place.
- "lack of sources" for just about everything. Klonimus 05:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In theory this should be kept, but in practice it suffers from two major problems - one is that it almost completely uncited original research, and the other is that it is being watchdogged by editors who don't appear to understand policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cleanup is needed on most, but if a problem with an article can be solved, deletion isn't the answer. If Islamofascism can be kept, this list certainly can as well. karmafist 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because I don't see a real encyclopedia article here. This is a mish-mash of catch-phrases and buzzwords, a few notable enough to have independent articles but most not. Many are unverified in even the most basic sense. This page is not a "structural list" which might help the reader to find relevant articles, nor do I see much possibility that it could become so. However, I would not be averse to a transwiki to Wiktionary since many of these are valid definitions. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Doc. Needs clear criteria for factual and source requirements, until then this article has no right to exist on WP. Dsol 17:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with Marskell. Inherently unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid AfD. The only way to bring the article back is for it to pass at WP:DRV. Considering the article doesn't exist, this AFD is completely invalid. I recommend you all go to the deletion review. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment, heh, Marskell's link from the judeofacism link threw me off, sorry. Anyways, delete. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 19:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not encyclopaedic, just a page full of American neologisms and POV, pretty stupid. --Chaosfeary 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yuber(talk) 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is one of the better articles. One change it could use is a rename to reflect the fact that it is really a list of American political epithets. Seano1 05:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is long, and needs to be broken up. Perhaps splitting it up by country would help. In addition, perhaps a note at the top should be added to encourage readers to simply use links to the relevant articles whenever possible, rather than expound on the terms whenever possible.Ngchen 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Del per Marskell & Klonimus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove what is not notable. Then transfer whatever is notable to Wiktionary. IZAK 03:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Izehar 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a random list of US political insults that neither educates nor informs. Over and above that is a lack of sources or verifying material - it's all but an invitation for neologisms. Sliggy 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - unbelievably interesting. Do some more verifications and get more contributors. Zordrac 12:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing Admin
[edit]Can we please have a complete tally of the voting when this VfD is comepleted. Klonimus 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Current tally is 16 keeps, 9 deletes. Zordrac 12:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As of closing, I count 14 Keep, 10 Delete, and 1 anon discarded. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 December 2005 (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.