Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gringo

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. JForget 01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gringo

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary article through-and-through; it covers etymology, word history, and examples of use. It even has a section titled "Meanings" for heaven's sake! This article should be deleted so that Gringo (disambiguation) can be moved to this title. Powers ^T 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not even remotely appropriate for a dictionary (compare wikt:gringo, which is what a dictionary entry would look like). This is a thoroughly encyclopedic, tolerably well researched and sourced encyclopedia article whose topic happens to be a word. Nothing wrong with that. +Angr 13:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even well-researched and sourced articles can be inappropriate topics. Find me anything in this article that wouldn't be found in a comprehensive dictionary entry (which the wiktionary article is not). Powers ^T 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The section headings are a bit muddled and there are many 'Citation needed' tags, but deletion is not for cleanup. This article discusses the social distribution and use of the word, the history of its usage, and its proposed etymology. Only the latter is dictionary content. Just as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Cnilep (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, usage history is dictionary content as well. Powers ^T 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "WP is not a dictionary." There could be an article on every word in the English language, although this one seems to exists mainly in Spanish and only secondarily in English. There is nothing so special about this word, also the article is full of opinions on if the word is offensive in various countries. We can't read people's minds to know what their intentions are in using a word so all this is just based on opinions. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly and encyclopedia-style treatment of a significant topic. This is not a mere linguistics exercise, but an examination of social history through the prism of a word. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Except that an encyclopedia is supposed to give information directly, not by way of "prisms." That's more the job of art. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Does it impart useful information for a user searching the term?" That is the key question. The answer is YES. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what's so special about this word, compared to thousands of others that don't have articles but could. I just checked out "commie" and it redirects to Communism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I compared this article with the Wiktionary article. Theirs is definitely just a dic def. this article, while probably poorly constructed (not that i could do better), and probably heavy on the word origins, is about a word that has enough debate, controversy to justify having an encyclopedia article. its a perfect subject to wikify, to link to other articles, to categorize, in ways that wiktionary cant do. WP is not a dictionary is really not applicable here, as there is abundantly more to this word than its definition. Regarding the Commie redirect: actually, i find it odd that the word Communist doesnt have an article, considering the furor around being identified as one at various times. I would argue we need an article (or at least a subsection) just for all the notable times someone has been called a communist to score political points. Here are some legitimate books which feature the term and the subject to some degree beyond dic def: Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America by Chesa Boudin, Gringo: the making of a rebel by Emil Willimetz, El gringo: New Mexico and her people, William Watts H. Davis. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and might be improved in accordance with our editing policy by reference to scholarly sources such as Observations on the Word Gringo. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably. I think Powers is spot on that the article in its current state is little more than a dictionary entry and is inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, taking a quick look at Colonel Warden's source and a making a cursory scan of Google Books, where I found some additional potential sources ([1][2][3]) I have all confidence that the article could be expanded into a decent encyclopedia article on a word, rather than a dictionary entry. In this case I think the solution is cleanup rather than deletion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reasonable encyclopedic article, much more than a definition. Other than the pejorative offense the word has, I can see no rationale for anybody making a case for exclusion. In other words, this article is being attacked on alterior PC grounds rather than its legitimacy.Trackinfo (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the Wiki article for "nigger" recommended for deletion. The first sentence of the article states "Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts." It identifies the subject as a word from a language, but the word itself has a culturally contextual relevance that elevates it above a mere dictionary entry. I feel like the word "gringo" (being one myself) has the same relevance. It seems to me (and, I'm no expert) that the purpose of a dictionary is merely to function as a rote reference book (using the Wiki page's definition of rote learning as my basis: "rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorization) and an encyclopedia is meant to function as a contextually aware guide to its subject material. Someone above said (with an implied eye-rolling) that there could be an encyclopedia article for every word in the English language, and I would say that, actually, there very well could, if it was going to be contextually relevant, and not just a dry, rote listing of the textbook meaning of the words, separate from any cultural or historical awareness. Obviously the encyclopedia itself should be a bias-free reference, but since I, as a person, do not have to be, I would like to believe that in a perfect world, having an encyclopedic knowledge of where these words come from would inspire us to no longer use them, or at the very least have them reappropriated or recontextualized. Iammichaeldavis (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - somewhat messy and poorly organized, but also extremely well-referenced, obviously notable concept (not a dictinary article on a word). Past outcomes for such concepts almost always results in a keep. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For past examples, see sisu, premises, and velleity. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on the concept of foreigner. Powers ^T 13:22, 3 June 2010 (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.