Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggardly

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

[edit] Niggardly

WP:WINAD. This is about the word, and an etymological tangent about the slur does not make it encyclopedic. And it's at Wiktionary already. Delete. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

• Keep the guy who resigned over it makes it notable. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  • So make it a redirect to him. This cannot be more than a dicdef, so delete. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 14:01 (UTC)
• Delete agree Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
• Keep notable word. NSR 1 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Dunc Martpol 1 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
• Keep. Its sound is somewhat like how people have been chased out of town or shot for being pedagogues. Should be expanded if possible. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Dmcdevit. It isn't a particularly notable word, nor one which has very much bearing on modern culture. I'm fine with it just being in wiktionary, and any other place that deals specifically with language. --Qirex 2005-07-01 13:00:59 (UTC)
  • user has 4 edits.
    • Gee, I'm sorry, must have missed the page that explained that elitism is official protocol and policy. Thanks for adhereing to that other policy I must have missed, the one about never signing and timestamping, whoever you are. --Qirex 2005-07-02 05:26:48 (UTC)
• Keep, linguistic controversies are encyclopedic. Kappa 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
  • Actually, reread it, there is no "linguistic" controversy. That is the point of the article: to use etymology to prove the distinctness of the two words. Let me quote from the policy: "It's fine to add a couple of lines of etymology to an existing article (or disambig), but an article shouldn't solely consist of etymology."
    • OK, controversies are encyclopedic. Kappa 1 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)
      • Well, that's my point. If you want a David Howard, go ahead and move the stuff there. No one would look for that in "Niggardly". The controversy may deserve an article, but not the word. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
        • "Niggardly" is exactly where I'd look for it. Kappa 2 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kappa Ryan 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Keep because it's a word which has caused genuine controversy. I remember when that happened, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 1, 2005 15:26 (UTC)
• Keep. The controversy over the word is notable. *Dan* July 1, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
• Merge to nigger, where the same subject matter is also covered. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent article. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Nigger ~~~~ 1 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
• Keep. Good little article. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
• keep please it is not a dictionary definition its an article and definitely dont merge it Yuckfoo 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
• Keep. –Hajor 1 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a word. It can never be a more than a definition at this time. The Howard anecdote is interesting, but belongs elsewhere. There is no controversy here anymore than there is a controversy between people confusing the word "duck" and the word "fuck". General illiteracy isn't a sufficient reason for an article on a single word. Glaucus 2 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Keep notable and controversial word. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Though the Howard anecdote is off-topic a little, it still seems like the best place to mention it (and it should be mentioned somewhere). So keep unless a better place to merge/redirect is found. DO NOT redirect to nigger, as that would only reinforce the notion that the words have a link that is more than coincidental. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
• Keep This sort of article is a better thing to reference if you want to send someone an explanation of the word than a dictionary entry. --Tysto 2005 July 2 05:54 (UTC)
• Keep. This is proper encyclopedic, not dictionary-style article of a word.--Jyril July 2, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge. More than simply a dicdef, controversies about this word are notable and linked to broad social concerns about the interpretation of language and identity. Xoloz 4 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
• Keep per Xoloz. Important little article. carmeld1 4 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
• Keep Article contains specific information on topic of importance. Agree with previous judgement to not redirct to nigger as far as through the Wiktionary, or "See also" section. Redircetion as related to the David Howard anecdote is appropriate. 5 July 2005 4:45 (PST)
• Keep I looked for this on Wikipedia specifically to find the entymology AND the Howard incident because I did not remember his name (see Kappa). Cddemaree 5 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article, hard to find Howard incident without it. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is informative. If someone is interested in the Howard incident, this is the natural place to look. Novacatz 6 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.