Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggardly (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion about name of article to continue at Talk:Niggardly. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:18Z

[edit] Niggardly

Niggardly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article must be deleted because it has distressingly little to do with its subject. I like the word (an obscure and delightful vestige of an old Germanic tongue), but other than the David Howard incident, I can't imagine anyone scavenging enough relevant encyclopedic content to sustain a real article.

I have read the discussion from the prior nomination and am not convinced. The rationale of the keep votes seems to be that a) the Howard controversy was notable and that b) people would have a hard time finding info about it without typing the word "niggardly" into the search box. That argument strikes me as bizarre, but if people still feel this way 2 years later, I suggest reducing the article to a prominent Wiktionary link along with a dab statement reading something like "For the guy who got in trouble for saying niggardly, see Nigger#Near-homophones", or "David Howard incident" or some other article that doesn't purport to be about something it's not. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If possible I would like to withdraw my nomination. Noroton has done a remarkable job digging up more and more citations for misunderstandings resulting from the use of this word. It is still desirable, however, that we change the name of the article, given that it focuses exclusively on the word's unfortunate similarity to the word nigger and does not really treat any other aspects of niggardly as an English word. I'm going to start a page move discussion on the talk page when I'm not so tired. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's already in Wiktionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the only info that should be on a page "niggardly" actually shouldn't be there under Wikipedia guidelines. So I vote redirect to David Howard incident or something similar --Miskwito 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, since the incident is already mentioned at Nigger#Near-homophones, weak delete --Miskwito 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Another change of opinion! Keep, I think it's been greatly improved, cited, and expanded. --Miskwito 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have reservations about redirecting to an article that, should we create it, probably wouldn't meet notability standards.Chunky Rice 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a dictionary definition. -- Whpq 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I am convinced by the rewrite and cites, that it is more than a dicdef. -- Whpq 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep its much more than a dicdef. We have thousands of articles on words that are full articles with their history and usage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ture, but do you really consider this a "full article?" If there was a significant amount of non-dictionary-style info about the word and its usage, I would agree with you. But the focus of this article is really just the Howard fiasco.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep appears to have some notability. Recognized by washington post.--Sefringle 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  If the article was called "David Howard Incident," I might agree with you. But as it is, I don't see it.Chunky Rice 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and here's why: There wasn't just the incident involving the Washington, D.C. bureaucrat, there were two other instances: At the University of Wisconsin, a student complained about a professor who used the word. About a month after the David Howard incident, she brought up the incident at a meeting where the school's speech code was debated; as a result of what was considered the outrageous oversensitivity of her claim (she had earlier filed a complaint against the professor), the speech code was abolished. The student's In North Carolina, a teacher was reprimanded for using the word in her class of fourth-graders. It seems to me that the article could be renamed "Controversies over the word Niggardly" with a redirect from "Niggardly". Noroton 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — It's good to keep these type of object lessons around. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced and many examples of usage (and controversy over its usage) that make this much more than a dicdef. Dragomiloff 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move to David Howard Incident. Dicdef. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like Noroton did a lot of good work on this article. I think that a move to "Controversies over the word Niggardly" with a redirect from "Niggardly" as suggested is also a good idea. Chunky Rice 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks Chunky Rice! I think the new information shows that the Howard incident wasn't the only one and that there's actually a lot to be said about the matter. I wouldn't at all be offended if someone else wants to edit what I've written, which I can see some problems with (I'll probably edit it a lot more later). I've probably overemphasized some of the more unusual commentary on the controversy because they interested me more. Noroton 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It would by a niggardly use of resources to delete this article
• Keep: the current cultural context of the word goes beyond its mere dictionary definition. 68.190.48.20 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree with majority--the word goes beyond its mere dictionary definition--Dseer 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, it's been nominated before and the vote failed. Deal with it. StuartH 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral: It seems to me that the entire problem arises from the fact that it 'looks' like a dicdef because the title of the article doesn't convey a person, place, thing, or concept. Change the title to something like "Niggardly as a precieved pejorative". Mensch 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, with a rename to "Niggardly controversy". Mensch's proposed title, though well intentioned, is not appropriate because it includes a negative term in the title, prejudicing the discussion when the reader comes to the article. HuskyHuskie 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree with the above rename. Interesting article though really not an issue outside the United States.
• Strong keep, If you want to perpetuate ignorance, remove the article. Wiki is fast becoming a google-level resource.
• Strong keep, with slight disinclination to rename; see tar baby for comparison. --moof 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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.