Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro engineering

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 merge to List of ethnic slurs. Taking this in steps:

1) We cover offensive topics. Everybody seems to agree on that.

2) Although this is well-sourced, there is wide agreement here that this is more of a WP:DICTDEF than an encyclopedia article, so keeping it as a stand-alone article is not appropriate.

3) Possible alternatives to deletion include transwikification, merging, or redirecting. Of those, transwikification has very little support, and redirect and merge are about equal.

4) The possible merge/redirect targets are jury rigging#similar phrases and list of ethnic slurs. There's a slight, but probably not statistically significant, preference for list of ethnic slurs, and I'll admit to a slight supervote to break the tie in that direction.

5) There's similarly no real consensus between merge and redirect, but once we've settled on list of ethnic slurs as the target, a redirect doesn't make sense because of the nature of that list.

6) So, calling this a limited merge, keeping the result in the style of the existing list. That probably means trimming the text somewhat, and keeping most or all of the sources, but I'll leave that up to whoever does the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afro engineering

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is clearly a dictionary entry and should be deleted per WP:ISAWORDFOR after transwikiing is completed. Additionaly, the page likely falls under CSD:A5 after transwikiing is done.WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was extra vigilante to ensure this article was appropriate when creating it. I made sure the sourcing was adequate and even submitted it to articles for creation (pinging SwisterTwister the user who reviewed it). It could use expansion, but the concept has a specific affinity to united states linguistic history and the auto mechanic industry. I would also like to point out that I left the nominator two warnings today, and had a disagreement with them (making this seem like a revenge nomination), see User talk:WannaBeEditor#October 2016, kitchen fires, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 10#Kitchen fires.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've raised it, I'd also add that it seems to me you "warned" the nominator and templated him inappropriately when you two simply had an honest disagreement over how best to handle a redirect. He invites you to discuss it you simply keep on templating him, which rather seems to me to be the dickish move, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Shawn in Montreal: XfD discussion notices should not be removed from a page until the discussion has concluded. The warnings were warranted. The second template was after the deletion notice was removed for the second time, which was also after they'd nominated this article for deletion. I was nothing but civil in my discussion with them, though my attempt to remedy their clear misunderstanding of certain parts of the criteria for speedy deletion was seemingly unsuccessful. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok. I see while he didn't remove the Rfd notice the second time, his edit had the same effect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Shawn in Montreal:, @Godsy: I did not intend for this to be a "revenge nomination," I just chanced upon the page when trying to evaluate who I am arguing with. To the contrary, I value Godsy's contribution to WP and hold no grudge against him. We had a simple argument over the most appropriate/efficient way to delete a redirect that I believe we both agree is unnecessary. Regarding the second removal of the notice, I indeed tried to remove the link for the specified reason, realized it breaks the template, noted it in my conversation with Godsy, and attempted to find a solution. Before I had time to make any change Godsy reverted my edit and I stopped short of edit warring. To conclude, I had no intention of edit warring, and I have no drive or reason to get revenge. At most I was slightly annoyed, I am not used to being "templated," "warned" or "threatened" both in my real life and in my WP identity. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best a(n Urban) Dictionary definition. Anmccaff (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regardless of the AFC process or who was pinged or what the history may be between nominator and creator, I don't see secondary coverage to raise this racial insult to the level of WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which instructs us that "articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." This is a good ref that does that. But even that's a passing and unscholarly mention in a chapter on "racetalk and classtalk." The creator doesn't help me to make my mind up on notability by merely linking to book titles, rather than the actual passages, or noting what they might be. I don't see quite enough to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy. Provides etymology and a history of the term. The Routledge source [1] is especially convincing that this wouldn't fall under WP:NOTDIC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fact that Routledge is a respected publisher, if one looks at the actual passage, it's just a brief rumination on an exchange between two warehouse workers, the eminent "Sam" and "Keith." Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a definition of a racial insult (which has been euphemized but is still racist), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because a compound word is derived from one of the words covered in Category:Anti-African and anti-black slurs doesn't mean that it is an encyclopedic term in its own right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the arguments for deletion, especially Metropolitan's. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of redirects, I'd have no objection to a redirect to an entry in List of ethnic slurs. We do certainly have enough WP:V for that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: These term(s) used to have an entry at jury rigging#similar phrases. The article is short enough that a full merge might even be reasonable.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly. I'm not sure I'd agree with that merge as a sufficiently similar phrase, but others might. I have used the term "jury rig" my whole life and take quite a bit of pride in my ability to jury rig. I would never say that I have 'nigger rigged' something or equate the two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the references present, merging it somewhere would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Pls see below // Original comment: dictionary definition at best. I also found the article to be somewhat POV and / or using weasel words, as in "The terms, especially "nigger rigging", were generally considered both racist and politically incorrect towards the late 20th century forward". Um, isn't the n-word plain insulting, and not "generally" and "considered"? And was is not a racial slur in the 1950s for example? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of ethnic slurs. Dictionary definition. Sandstein 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to take up the task of merging this somewhere. Of the targets suggested, jury rigging and list of ethnic slurs seem to have the most support at the moment, hence I'd suggest redirecting (as my second choice) this article and all its redirects to one of those as opposed to deletion.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice if it were edited for accuracy first; nearly everything in it is wrong. The term is older, and is often a backhanded compliment rather than a simple insult. It also has several other ethnic parallels. Anmccaff (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: I wrote the article based on the sourcing available to me. If you know of any sources that state the things you just did, please point me to them, or feel free to introduce them along with the information you stated into the text yourself.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ethnic slurs; redirect is preferable to a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on the sources, but move to Nigger-rigging, which seems to be the much more widely used term, because this sort ofepithet would have been much more common in earlier periods. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources.--72.58.114.125 (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jury rigging or possibly list of ethnic slurs. There is history to the term, as with any word -- racist terms being among the most studied, of course -- and there may even be enough coverage to merit mentioning it as a meaningful/historical synonym, but why do we have an article for a subject, and multiple articles about racism and racial slurs, and then another article for the same subject via racial slur? Why wouldn't we cover them together? Even as a boldword in the lead, if it's quite prominent? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think ethnic slurs can be notable, even this one. However, for this article, even the non-dictionary sources are basically giving dictionary definitions, including, what I think are the best two, Myers, Kristen A. (2005) and, Jackson, Shirley A. (2015). I'd !vote keep if more detail were given. However, I don't know how much more detail can be given without becoming OR. For instance, the term seems closely interrelated with the context of the labor industry in which the term originated, do the sources support expansion in that way? One source discussing that context is Poteet, Jim; Poteet, Lewis (1992), which seems to be a humor book and maybe self-published, so not exactly reliable. Droney, Damien (2014) is an example of convergent evolution or something, the usage here is neologistic expression used by a person from Africa to refer to the lack of resources they had when making a repair, and doesn't seem the same as the rest of the article. The other citations are expressly dictionaries or I can't access. Celock, John (2013) seems ok on usage, but just because a slur is used doesn't make it notable, I think.Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is covered a bit by sourcing, but all we have is understanding that a term exists, basically. Deletion seems like the right call for sure. I wouldn't object, though, to a proper redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2016 (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.