Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutt (humans)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Rlevse 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutt (humans)

Mutt_(humans) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This page has no sources. As well, there are thousands of racial slurs and they don't deserve pages of their own. Suggest deletion or IF it can be backed up it can be moved to "List of ethnic slurs" page with other words of its ilk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Gallagher (talk • contribs) 2007/07/03 12:36:43

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable racial slur. Realkyhick 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, possible merge with list of ethnic slurs. It's certainly a real term for someone of mixed ethnicity (I've personally been called it enough times to know) but it's also a term for someone who's acting shady (New York Irish seem to use it a lot). It's dual meaning should at least get it's wiktionary updated (I'm not active there).«»bd(talk stalk) 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a Canadian who would need to be see sources to be convinced by this claim: "One notable exception is in Canada where the term generally is not considered in any way offensive but indeed is a point of pride with many given the multicultural make up of the country. It may also be used as an affectionate term." Canuckle 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a very compelling slur. I mean, isn't it good to be diversified in your DNA makeup, otherwise we'd all be hemophiliacs with 11 toes. ~ Infrangible 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable refs are presented (Forums are not reliable), if presented, consider merging per Bd.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are such non-blog references as Fox News [1] (scroll down to "No One Has a Sense of Humor Anymore" about a black school board member starting a firestorm of criticism by using the term to describe hinself and others of mixed racial background. This case was also discussed in a college paper at[2], and in the Chicago Sun Times at [3]. The use of the term in a separate case to describe mixed race was discused at a college paper at [4]. It is also discussed at [5] . RollingStone magazine discusses it at [6] . The article now has several article from reliable publications where the use of the term is at least mentioned, and one incident of a public official using it which led to controversy with national coverage. Edison 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is an apt entry into the dictionary, but it is not an article; there is no basis for an article. It is a label nothing more. Attempting to stretch into multiracial individuals is a more significant topic that goes beyond the word. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a great case of a dictionary definition not really explaining any context required by WP:WINAD. Not to mention the sources, which might be good enough for wiktionary, are not good enough for wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 15:21, 16 July 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.