Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-denial

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afro-denial

since when did Urban Dictionary become part of Wikipedia? nn, neo, etc. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plus what the nominator wrote. Darquis 02:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a definition of a word which appears in a couple of episodes of one comic strip -- not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Maybe if the term starts being published more widely. --Ginkgo100 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — John 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a bit too silly (thank God no one has used the term 'racist' so far in this AfD) - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn! - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry — you mentioned the word; you didn't use it. Metamagician3000 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You knew the AfD wasn't going to go through without someone using it, didn't you? Fan1967 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn neologism. MCB 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ioannes Pragensis 06:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Urban dicitionary is meant to be humorous, not factual. Tobyk777 06:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep every single one of you has mentioned that wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that continues to be true for Afro-denial. It only explains two versions of what the term refers to. I defy you to say that Wikipedia does not include articles that list definitions of words as a single entry. For instance, a search of the word "entrance" on wikipedia listed 5 different definitions of the word rather than what I expected; a thorough explanation of different types of entrances (this same feat of wikipedia defining words can be repeated with the word "pop". As to the intent of Urban Dictionary, if it is truly meant ot humorous, perhaps Tobyk777 would like to explain why it is included standard under quick searches (along with Wikipedia, Google, and Dictionary.com) in the Mozilla Firefox bookmarks. However, I will promptly change my voting stance should someone formulate a reasonable idea as to why this stub should be deleted. TheMadjester (note: I do realize that as the article's originator I do have a notable amount of bias, however, I still feel none of you have given practical reasons for deletion and are hiding behind the "definition" arguement. Anyone willing to fight this on the category of "racist" be prepared to both be confronted with the actual scientific lack of race and justification of it being non-racist)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadjester (talk • contribs)

• Comment "Something else on Wikipedia does it, therefore, it's ok for this to do so as well" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. Rather, it's an argument to improve those other pages. Further, regardless of the intent of Urban Dictionary (by the by, inclusion in Firefox isn't relevant (not that it seems to be included in the version I'm using)) it's in some form, as the name implies, a dictionary. The article itself is little more than a dicdef, and citing a dictionary as a source for a dictionary style entry isn't appropriate (as I understand it). Further, it's a non notable neologism (as the nominator said). It was used once, in a recent Boondocks. Maybe if the word catches on down the line, it will be worth having. Further, the external link to "Afro-Denial" has nothing to do with the article's sujbect matter, and in fact only has that hyphenated word in common (and at that, only once within the whole article linked to). Darquis 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal As to whether lead by example is or is not valid: If this article is subsequently deleted on the basis that it is the same as others, then I expect those articles to be nominated for deletion as well, on the basis that those articles break the same lines of conformity as Afro-denial allegedly does. Perhaps I haven't read my wikiguides thoroughly enough, but it seems to me that someone citing webster's in an article would probably be accepted, people (specifically, the voters for Deletion) doubt the validity of Urban Dictionary on the basis that their definitions come from the same place our articles do: ourselves. As to whether or not Afro-denial is used enough, I've seen it used in a number of news articles citing it in use as a symbol of African-American attempts to conform to white society pressures (a search of google should make that apparent). The second link and through that, the second explanation of the term, is important not for the number of times that the word "Afro-denial" is used throughout (a shallow way to prove the invalidity of something, I might add), but important because in the Pallo Jordan's speech, he uses Afro-denial as the denial of things African, of African importance. You say Firefox inclusion isn't important, but as a multinational corporation with a very popular usage, it is able to reach a number of people, lending credibility to things it supports (for instance: Wikipedia). To get Deny Afro-Denial is to become Hypocrites in effect, and this you must not do! TheMadjester

Comment You are treating this as if this is a debate on the "validity" or value of the term. It is not. It is about whether it is notable. It does not appear so, as it does not seem to be a commonly used term (I get a total of 159 hits on google), and therefore fails the Wikipedia policy on neologisms. Fan1967 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No I am treating this as a debate on the validity of the accusation of whether or not it is notable for wikipedia. I am saying it is. TheMadjester

Comment I think the following lines from the policy are relevant: (1) Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (2) Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. If the word were in widespread use, this would be a different discussion, but it isn't. Fan1967 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others, this is a dicdef at best, more like WP:OR at worst --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Phrase used once in The Boondocks. Call me when it's notable --Bachrach44 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability outside minor dictionary term entry hasn't been established. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 1 May 2006 (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.