Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Paddy

AfD nominated by Taramoon. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is used very often in Ireland and the article's matter is relevant. If there are reference problems, I suggest bringing the matter up with the Irish Wiki Projects. Cat Constantine 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it has references and content. Obina 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline insulting, but has references and many GHits.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sourced and verifiable. -- ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cultural appropriation is never pretty, and this entry doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:DELETE. - WeniWidiWiki 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sourced, notable, and verifiable. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as repost of previously deleted article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddies. -999 (Talk) 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User:999 is canvassing and vote-stacking on this issue and has contacted at least five other editors attempting to influence the outcome of this debate as evidenced HERE - WeniWidiWiki 04:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The previous version of this article had weak citations. This version is now thoroughly cited. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's referenced and notable. :bloodofox: 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sociological phenomena are notable if verifiable. Caknuck 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The references included don't seem to verify that the term is in general usage. The existence of one song doesn't make it a real slang term any more than "Polythene Pam" or "Mean Mr. Mustard". It is possible that a bit more work could remedy this, however. I found a couple other examples with a simple search, definitely better than footnote 5 (which is really stretching it). ANY reference from a slang dictionary would be welcome, whether general or specific to the U.K. I'm also not sure it means what the article says it means in most cases: it seems to be used as an adjective mostly, not a noun. (But who knows; maybe it will BECOME a term in use one day, like "Truthiness".) Rosencomet 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I see a number of references to usage have been added, but has anybody written about the term in an academic context with respect to cultural appropriation. That is, this appears to be the first article to try to draw all these facts together and draw conclusions from them. That falls under the definition of "original research" on Wikipedia. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you haven't looked at the article recently but there are citations in academic journals. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Academic journals cited for the use of "plastic paddy" in terms of cultural appropriation include The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Irish Studies Review and Irish University Review. That's more citations than found on the majority of WP articles that *do* require academic-level cites. For an article of this type, popular culture cites would be sufficient. This article goes beyond that and includes citations of usage in both popular culture and academia. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be very well cited. Tarinth 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep however, the article is almost entirely POV - needs a MAJOR clean up or else it would be a delete from me. Also the references quoted to not back up what is claimed in the article - again very POV--Vintagekits 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - reduce to dicdef and move to Wiktionary. Not particularly notable, but deserves a place in the dictionary. Jefferson Anderson 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as it is already in Wiktionary. Article is unneeded, this expression needs nothing more than a dicdef. It's simply neo-slang. Jefferson Anderson 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has very weak references. Also, who uses the term. I have never heard the term being used once in Ireland. The only people who use the term are a handful of journalists. 86.42.159.149 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.42.159.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Keep - Useful cultural reference, similar to Scanger in scope. Needs tweaks for NPOV, though, and editorialism - Alison ^✍ 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are really two questions:

Does Wikipedia need an article on "people whose claim to be Irish is disputed or derided by many Irish people"
If so, what is an appropriate name for such an article?

I believe the answer to (1) is no. The phenomenon is real but not very well-defined or autonomous. The references seem more to prove the term exists than to define what precisely it means, who it is applied to, and by whom. The content and references belong in Irish diaspora, Republic of Ireland national football team, Immigration to Ireland, Irish American, cultural appropriation, cultural cringe, etc. If (the answer to (1) is yes, then I don't think "Plastic Paddy" is a POV answer to (2), but there may not be any neutral term to describe the alleged phenomenon (cf Neoliberalism). "Plastic Paddy" is a genuine term, and certainly merits a place in Wiktionary, but nothing more. jnestorius^(talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be about the phenomenon and not solely on the history/usage of the phrase, obviously, but it is easy for me to imagine that we'll have a reasonable encyclopedia article here, given the existence of academic writing on the subject. Have the people arguing for deletion missed the notes and references in the article? The only other deletion comment seems to be "never heard of it / not in general usage", which I dsipute both as a factual statement and as a criteria for deletion. The article needs some help, but I don't see any evidence that it is a lost cause. Jkelly 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've encountered the term in the Usenet newgroup soc.culture.irish and the article as it currently stands has references. Autarch 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some cleanup and maybe a little bit of NPOV tweaking, but I don't see any case for deletion. Dppowell 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is referenced as a notable term. Logoistic 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dicdef appears to be more suited to Wiktionary than Wikipedia. WP:WINAD. Lo and behold! it's already there at wikt:Plastic Paddy. I too have seen the term in s.c.i, but what does that prove? If someone can suggest how this can be expanded beyond a simple definition, I'll change my opinion, but so far I haven't seen anything like that. What [N]POV has to do with the matter escapes me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As a result of Angus McLellan's find I am changing my vote to Delete for the same reasons--Vintagekits 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning that this is a dicdef and belongs in Wiktionary. Tunnels of Set 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef `'mikka 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be ephemeral but so are lots of (e.g.) computer games listed on wiki.Stamboul 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, verifiable, and more than a dicdef. —An gr 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, multiple sources Catchpole 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well used term (Gnevin 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I think it should be kept due to it's wide use.Wikidudeman 00:25, 31 January 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.