Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana (person)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Evidently not a delete, but much uncertainty over whether to merge or keep outright, especially as several people give both options without a conditioning (note to such editors: it's hard to know what you really want.) -Splash^talk 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banana (person)

dicdef. I propose transwiki to wiktionary 202.156.2.75 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This is a mere discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of this particular slang phrase. It has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. See wikt:banana. Note, however, that transwiki is a pagemove from one Wikimedia project to another, not a deletion from the project altogether. As such, transwikis do not have to be discussed first on AFD. This particular pagemove has been contested and is being discussed on the article's Talk page. I would ask that the interested parties make their comments on the article's Talk page instead of duplicating the conversation here. Rossami (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, ethnic stereotype. Kappa 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all articles (incl. this, Egg (person), Oreo (person), etc.) on terms used to describe persons with physical attributes of one culture and social attributes of another into a single article on Responses to acculturation. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just changed my vote to Merge. If Banana (person) proves itself that it can grow beyond the dicdef status after being merged, then it will have the right to become a separate article. --202.156.2.75 16:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ethnic slurs or keep as their are articles on Chigger and Coonass. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 16:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per  BD2412 ^talk. Piecraft 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I personally like the suggestion of BD2412. If a project to merge all ethnic stereotypes get through, I'd like to partcicipate in it. Shauri 17:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this has been VFDd so many times before. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all of these per BD2412 - SimonP 18:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per BD2412. Superm401 | Talk 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, common, offensive slang. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's more content here than a dictionary definition. I also disagree with the "merge" proposals from various folks. Wikipedia is not paper and we can leverage hyperlinks. I personally do not like long articles as they are much harder to edit than short, focussed articles. Samw 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per BD2412. Saberwyn 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per BD2412's suggestion. Nae'blis 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many are voting to to "merge". Would you vote to "merge" for "nigger"? Why or why not? It would seem to me this article and "nigger" are in exactly the same category and decisions made here should apply equally there. Samw 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Nigger (unfortunately) seems to have much greater use and history than this particular slur. (No vote.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, that's a false analogy. "Nigger" is a word with a long history associated with social and historical ideas. In fact, it's the title of two books and a play, and has 1.7 million google hits. "Banana" is a word of far less significance and of recent invention. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah so I finally got people to admit the issue is notability and not the fact that this article is an alleged "dictdef" per the original nomination since it's only about the word and not about the subject. So how do we go about establishing "notability" criteria? For those in the ethnic group, "banana" is far more notable than "nigger". No doubt "nigger" has more google hits but where do we draw the line? The whole beauty of Wikipedia is that it can cover the "long tail". Restricting articles to "notable" subjects actually hurts Wikipedia in the long run. So long as the article is factual, it should be kept. Samw 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The argument is still that this cannot expand past a dictdef. There's much that can be said about nigger, but not much that can be said beyond a defition and context for Banana (person). This is, however, an argument to merge this into a list or transwiki it to Wiktionary, though, neither of which keep this term from being covered. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "Banana Boys" illustrates usage of the word. "Banana Boys" has 12,000 Google hits. It's not only a book but a play[1] that has been reviewed by major Canadian newspapers, is supported by government arts funding agencies and has toured in the Canadian national and provincial captial cities. I believe that establishes notability for "Banana Boys". If we agree "Banana Boys" is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry on it's own, then I would argue the root word "Banana" is also notable. BTW, I learned about "Banana Boys" from this article. Samw 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per BD2412. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's valuable information here beyond a dicdef. If someone actually merges it gracefully rather than just voting for it to happen, there'll be no objection from me. However, hyperlinks preclude the need to merge. Unfocused 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep  --  W  P Talk 10:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - There's also an on-going discussion at Talk:Banana (person) Samw 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep anons are not allowed to delete anyway `Yuckfoo 21:44, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.