Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger butterfly

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 early closure with no consensus for deletion. This article was moved to Orsotriaena medus by Alkivar on September 20th, there appears to be a consensus in support of this move. Discussion of the redirect should take place at WP:RFD and future move proposals should be discussed at WP:RM. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigger butterfly

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nigger butterfly
Nigger butterfly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is not the common name of this insect. I suggest we delete this and move the article to Orsotriaena medus. I apologize if this should have been raised somewhere else but would like to discuss whether or not this an article by this name should be deleted or not. Thanks. Burntsauce 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Move to Orsotriaena medus and keep Nigger butterfly as a redirect. There is plenty of evidence in a cursory Google search that this is a common name for this butterfly. Here is an image of the butterfly. The term is objectionable to modern eyes, but it was (or is) still used. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Once Wikipedia mirrors have been factored out (as with the link above) there are only 17 hits on Google for this term, some of which link to objectionable T-shirts and the like. Burntsauce 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move as per Burntsauce's comment. Not because of "ZOMG HE SAID DA N-WORD", but because there are only 17 hits for it. Therefore, it should be moved to Orsotriaena medus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move as there is a good reason for keeping a former official name even if no longer used. The article should indicate that it is now rare. (In future please use WP:RM for this type of request. There was no actual request to delete content.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reponse. There is a specific reason I did not use Wikipedia:Requested moves, as I am questioning whether or not we should delete this article title. This is a gray area in my honest opinion but perhaps I missed something. Thanks! Burntsauce 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Good faith remains assumed, Burntsauce, but allow me to explain myself. The content is not what you want to delete, but the title. Recreating the content without following the necessary procedures would violate GFDL requirements. It seems what you want is a move (thus WP:RM) followed by a deleted redirect (WP:RFD) and a concurrent history merge. In any case I don't believe there is justification for removing an offensive animal name, because we don't censor reality. I don't think it has to be the predominant name (even historically) to be worth salvaging as a potential search term. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Where did you see that the name isn't used anymore? I don't see this anywhere.--Victor falk 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Nigger butterfly does seem to be the common name: [1] ,[2],[3], [4], [5], [6]. I believe policy is to use the common name and not the binomial unless it is ambiguous and can denotate several species--Victor falk 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply In this case, Victor falk, evidence indicates that the "common" name is often omitted; the scientific name is used alone almost exclusively. --~~
  • Comment I think there's some confusion here about the sense of "common" in this case. It should interpreted as in "familiar", "popular", "vernacular", "vulgar", "non-scientific", not in the "frequent", "widespread", "often" sense. I think I have established with the sources above that it is the common (ie, non-binomial) accepted name of out little critter, and that is not used for other species or families. Hence, per wikipedia guidelines, this should be the article's title.--Victor falk 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move WP:RM should have been used rather than AfD. Epbr123 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move if needed. This happens to be a name from colonial times and was introduced by British naturalists to this Asian (mostly Indian) species. This has been considered in the past on WP:LEPID and I think the article has been moved between common and scientific names several times. Shyamal 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move and keep this as a redirect. Bad name, but I'd hate to have someone looking for information not be able to find it -- and it's much better than having them end up an a racial page when looking for biology. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not in Webster's Third Matchups 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move, and redirect not really necessary. Per Wikipedia:Profanity "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Certainly not needed in the title. As Burntsauce noted above, its use is really rare on the Internet outside of WP, its mirror sites, and icky sites. The name could be mentioned in the article somewhere, and a researcher could still find it. Novickas 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move article to Orsotriaena medus, and delete the current title per Novickas. Burntsauce 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Orsotriaena. I have built up the article. I found that it is monotypic and as per norms it should be moved to the generic name, with the species binomial nomenclature and the two common names (Nigger & Smooth-eyed Bushbrown) to be made redirects.AshLin 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Also, BEST. PAGE NAME. EVER. Should this go in the funny junk whatever it's called section? ViperSnake151 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move And keep as redirect, Wikipedia should be sensitive to things like this but not so far as to rewrite history. Calibas 04:02, 21 September 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.