Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 28

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 keep. For all the words in this debate, the consensus is quite clear that the article is to be kept.

Murzyn

Murzyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Twice over. WP is not a dictionary and doubly so not a Polish language dictionary. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not all words are notable, but some are. What makes it less notable than entries in Category:Polish words and phrases and Category:Exonyms? The discussion of the word by Kłoskowska or Piróg seems to suggest it is notable. On a side note, it would be nice if the author would learn how to format references properly (cite templates...) and avoid the humongous quotes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a

ogórek (Polish for cucumber) on English wikipedia ? Would the fact that the Polish source discusses "ogórek" in Polish make it more notable ? --Lysy^talk 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no need for

Polish pickled cucumbers. Pl wiki distinguishes those from pl:ogórek konserwowy, and if there is no established English name for it, we may end up having an article on ogórek konserwowy on en wiki... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Likewise, there may be a reason to have

Grek, etc. --Lysy^talk 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If we are talking about a correct name for the article, this already suggests a keep vote (and a RM to start). Some words are encyclopedic, their usage is studied by scholars. The sources I noted above suggest this is one of them, and that it is of interest to scholars, just like

Żyd, dealing with the word meaning in Polish language (analyzing the stereotypical image of the Jew in Poland through the use in proverbs and such) - although it could be a section in some larger article. Murzyn could also exist as part of some article describing words for black people in different languages, but as we are most likely missing them, keeping this one seems like a reasonable outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This is actually a very good illustration of the problem. If we could separate the article

anti-Semitism in Poland, it would be fine. The problem is that it's very hard to avoid having both articles discussing the same after some time. The same with Murzyn, we claim it explains the particular Polish word, but I'm sure it will have the tendency to evolve into Racism in Poland, which should be a separate article. But if we create it we would end up with two differently named articles with more or less the same contents. --Lysy^talk 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep This is a notable word like negro, sambo (racial term), nigger, nigga and indeed Polack. The sources presented show that in Poland there is a considerable amount of academic and general societal discussion surrounding this word (whether it is racist and whether it should be replaced by other words). That's why I noticed it in the first place. It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland, has a long history, and deserves coverage. That it's from a foreign language is neither here nor there (see Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour and many other foreign words found in [Category:Ethnic and religious slurs] and probably other categories). I have the strong feeling certain editors object more to the airing of dirty linen, than to this article's actual encyclopaedic worth. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Malick78 is the creator of the article so he is, understandably, fighting to keep it. Second, Malick78, you're assuming that this word belongs in the "Category:Ethnic and religious slurs" - it doesn't, it's not a slur. All the examples you gave above (Ang mo, Ah Beng, Chukhna, Giaour) are in fact slurs, and in each of these cases an alternative non-offensive word exists. Here "Murzyn" pretty much IS that non-offensive word in Polish. Yes, there are some people who are saying now that it's outdated and politically incorrect - more or less the same way that some people think that the term "black" in English is politically incorrect relative to "African-American" - and there are other people who say it's not but until a new word comes along and gets established this is just a standard translation of the word for "black person" in Polish. The fact that Polish academics are discussing the etymology of a Polish word is not sufficient for an English wikipedia - Polish academics discuss the etymology of lots of Polish words. You say " It's the main word for 'black person' in Poland" - but that's precisely why it belongs in Wikitionary not Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say that it deserves to be kept because it's a slur. I just found some foreign words (sure, slurs) that had articles about them, in order to show that foreign words are worthy of English language articles. I fully realise that it's a multi-faceted word with many interpretations, and therefore needs in depth examination to fully appreciate the complex nature of it. Hence an article ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, here's a video of Poland's first black MP John Godson discussing the term on Polish state TV with a black Polish musician. Does the word 'ogorek' get this kind of coverage? The comparison is completely inaccurate. Malick78 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: here's a source comparable to the one used for "cycki murzynki": Czas na ogórki!, here is a video prominently featuring ogórek and providing the rich cultural context Ogórek wąsaty, here is a political article about the role of ogórek in European Union policies: Unia przegrała z naturą, about ogórek's presense in Polish parliament:Efektowna konferencja, and here is another vital info, mentioning the "day of ogórek" Dlaczego ogórek nie czyta ?. The word "murzyn" does not even have its day. --Lysy^talk 11:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those things are about cucumbers, not the word 'ogorek'. In your excitement at finding such a wealth of information I think you may have got a little confused and off-topic. As for the link to "cycki murzynki", that was to prove it exists. You know it exists, all Poles know it exists, so a link to something about it was just a courtesy. Malick78 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only wanted to demonstrate that it's absolutely easy to find obscure or irrelevant sources. Relevant RS might be a problem, as it is in the case of murzyn. --Lysy^talk 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a research paper on ogórek by the famous Pirog: J. Pirog (2008). "Przydatność krótkich ogórków uprawianych w tunelu foliowym do kwaszenia jako małosolne". Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych. 527. and there are many more ... OK, enough ;) As for "cycki murzynki" it's the first time I've heard of it so this was educative as well. --Lysy^talk 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—yes, wp is not a dictionary, but any word that is rich enough in conceptual content to inspire sufficient numbers of reliable sources that discuss the word itself as a topic (as opposed to merely using it) satisfies the gng, and we should have an article on it. i would take this position even if the article lacked sources, providing i could find sources, but in this case, there's no need to do that since the article is impressively well sourced. the article is well written, and convincingly makes the case for the notability and encyclopedicity of the term. i also find Malick78's comparisons with articles on other racial slurs to be quite convincing. these are exactly the kinds of words that turn out to be notable, and are exactly the kinds of words that need both definitions in a dictionary and entries in an encyclopedia— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article rather discusses racism in Poland than the Polish word. How about renaming it to Racism in Poland ? Looking through the "sources", they are either obscure, bogus or irrelevant. It's possible to write a similarly "impressively well sourced" article on almost any Polish dictionary word. --Lysy^talk 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i don't read polish, so it's true that i can't evaluate the quality of the sources as i would be able to do if they were in english, but it strikes me that your dismissal of them is too sweeping to be completely accurate. the one by Antonina Kłoskowska is clearly reliable, and the one by Patrycja Pirog certainly appears to be so, if the translation is accurate and the source is, as it appears to be, the proceedings of an academic conference. these two alone seem to me to be enough to satisfy the gng. i think that as it stands, the article is actually not about racism in poland, but about the word itself. the sources seem to discuss the word, not racism in general. if some of the other sources don't strike you as reliable, you could edit them out if you wanted. it wouldn't be possible to write such an article about almost any dictionary word in any of the languages i know. is there something special about polish in this regard?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are obscure, but most of them are simply irrelevant. The video is a promotion of an anti-racist children book, the Żakowski article is about smoking and the author uses "I'm black" in the sense of "I'm being discriminated", the article by Pirog is about the connotations of black people in Polish art and culture (that's also what the conference was about). I cannot comment much on the text of Kłoskowska as it's not available online, but its title "Nation, race and ethnicity in Poland" suggests that it discusses racism rather than the actual "murzyn" word. Likewise the text by Ziółkowski is about the racist stereotypes in the US. I will not comment on the quality of the sources for cake recipes. --Lysy^talk 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have articles on the translation of the term "black person" in Russian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Chinese, etc.? Volunteer Marek  20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The video is not promoting the book, if you watch all 7 minutes you'll see it's about the use of the word 'murzyn'. Do you think that a Polish MP would come on the show just to promote the book? And why do the two black men start arguing? It's about the connotations of the word and how black Poles should be described. Please don't describe the sources inaccurately when not everyone here speaks Polish and can understand them for themselves. I would disagree with your descriptions of the other sources as well. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kloskowska source is online and the relevant part is basically a footnote. Volunteer Marek  20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books search for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim". Unfortunately, most Polish books just give us a snippet view, but a quick overview suggests there are more sources available (if not easily online yet). Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Volume 32 from 2006 seem to have at least several pages on this word (one quote: "Ustalając konotacje semantyczne zbiorowe, odnoszące się do nazwy Murzyn, a które zakorzenione są w świadomości zbiorowej użytkowników języka polskiego, opisać należy nie tylko frazeologię i paremiologię, lecz i inne aspekty kształtujące..."). The article currently is poor and could benefit from better refs and more research, but the more I look into this the more I am convinced the subject is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is applicable in this case. Of course Polish linguists study this word, just like they study other Polish words - maybe a bit more. Additionally, most of the hits seem to be to (unavailable) sources which are picking up the word "pojecie" "jezyk polski" etc. Searching for "pojęcie murzyn w języku polskim" with quotation marks gives zero hits. Same for variations designed to increase the number of hits [1], [2], [3] - all no hits. Even looking at the search w/o quotation marks [4] which one of these sources is actually discussing the word itself, rather than using it in some completely unrelated context? None as far as I can see. I mean some of them are just translations of English language works about completely different topics - like translation of John Stuart Mill which obviously has nothing to do with how the word is used in Polish. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also [5], [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one ("also" to what?) is a "maybe" - it's a Polish linguistics paper. So yeah, not surprising that Polish linguists would discuss a Polish word. But that's not really enough here, since that's what linguists do. The second one looks better, particularly since it's in English. But again, it's a linguistics publication - apparently about Slavic languages. So this too would support the inclusion of this type of entry in a dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. The bottomline is that you can find these kinds of sources on almost any word, English, Polish, or other. Again, why not have an entry on how "black person" is translated into Russian, German, Hindu etc.? Volunteer Marek  22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite simple. There are no academic articles about the word ogorek. Murzyn has dozens. That's why it's notable. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what?!? Where are these "dozens" of sources? Even the article now has only 13 sources over all and half of them are junk (somebody's webpage with some recipe on it, some opinion piece about smoking, letters to the editor etc.). And they're not academic. You got 1 sort of "academic" source which deals with it. You got a few academic sources which mention it in footnotes or passing. And you got one, maybe two, sources which are "academic" in the sense that they are articles by Polish authors about Polish linguistics. Quit making stuff up. Volunteer Marek  22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a word notable? If it is studied by the linguists, and touches upon sociological issues (discrimination, stereotypes, and so on), that seems to make it notable to me. It would be easier if we had

WP:N seems to suffice; the word received coverage in numerous, reliable sources - and I see no exception there that would make linguistic works not reliable for our purposes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• A link to a Polish dictionary [7] - which actually just shows that this belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
• The source by Klosowska [8], which *I* was the one who put that in, trying to make something half way decent out of the mess that was in there. Importantly, this "source" for the word is a ... a one sentence footnote. Other than that it is again irrelevant.
• That whole "OPPOsite" website [9] and Patrycja Pirog which is really all that you have here. It's a goofy source (post-modernist writing nonsense) but I guess it does qualify under the heading of reliable sources. This is listed separately in the article's reference section 4 or 5 times, giving it an appearance that it's numerous sources being used, where it really is just one.
• A link to a tv interview by Poland's black MP who says he doesn't think the word is racist. Ok, relevant but by itself not nearly enough.

That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.

The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek  17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you have a PhD, where did you get it? I want one from there too! Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like a stupid asshole. You've just dismissed everything I said with an obnoxious off-topic comment which is obviously meant to be insulting. Sort of speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek  16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you try to stay civil. Otherwise you might get in trouble, like you have been before (you are the editor-formerly-known-as-Radeksz from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, aren't you?). Malick78 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're gonna make personal attacks on people and make obnoxious comments then you have no right to demand that they "stay civil" towards you - you've given up the right to that kind of consideration. I could've reported you for that PhD comment but it's more time-efficient and to the point just to call you on it. Volunteer Marek  18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised keep. Those who know of some of my previous AfD activity may be surprised to see this, but this is a good example of an article about a word that actually has valid encyclopedic coverage. I will point to this article in the future as an example of what some of the truly horrendous dictionary entries we have here should look like. Powers ^T 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per comments above. This belongs in Wikitonary, not Wikipedia. Author of the article is trying to make the term seem more controversial than it really is by cherry picking sources to make it seem more notable - in an encyclopedic sense. Move the whole thing to a dictionary.  Volunteer Marek  20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to see how anyone could cherry-pick in order to make something seem notable. what would they do? omit mentions of sources that don't discuss the topic? if there are reliable sources that discuss the topic then it's notable. a place for cherry-picking opens up if there are opposing views on an already notable topic and someone doesn't give a balanced account of that. that's how the term is

usually used.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please assume good faith, Volunteer Marek. No cherry-picking was needed. The first articles I found were all about the controversial nature of the word. Not many people write about words to say how unexceptional they are :) Malick78 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a way this actually addresses alf.laylah.wa.laylah's objection. It's a relatively - though not completely - uncontroversial word. So yeah, the only sources you're going to find are going to be ones which say it's controversial (and write down, that's basically 1). The people who think it's not controversial are just not going to write articles about it. So to answer alf.laylah.wa.laylah's question - yes, that's what cherry-picking involves here - not mention all the sources which use it in a controversial way. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so if I say Obama is a woman... can I back it up by pointing out the lack of webpages devoted to his female nature? Because, hey, if no one bothers to write about it, it must be something uncontroversial that everyone knows. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good example. It's as if you started an article on The femaleness of Obama and then claimed that it was a notable concept because you found some post-modern studies article (singular) (and I am certain that such exists) about Obama's femalness. And then claimed that it made the topic notable. And then said "well, I can't find any sources which say that don't deal with Obama's non-femalness, therefore the concept is notable". ???  Volunteer Marek  22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

find the sources, write the article, and i promise to !vote keep when it appears here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you missed the point ;) --Lysy^talk 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The "Murzyn" article provides substantial information on a notable topic, and the information is too extensive to fit in a dictionary. Comparable articles on use of analogous terms in other languages would also be welcome. As an electronic encyclopedia, Wikipedia can accommodate topics that might not be considered in a paper encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Upon a closer examination of the article, I'm changing my mind, and I support keeping it. Maybe I should have withdrawn this AFD now but first of all I don't know how to do that, and secondly, let's have it completed for the sake of future doubts like mine. At the same time I would like to apologize Malick and everyone involved for the time wasted on the afd :) --Lysy^talk 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks :) Out of interest, what finally swayed you? Malick78 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cycki murzynki. But seriously, some minimal research that I've done trying to verify some claims of the article. My initial impression was that this is yet another vanity article by a frivolous editor and that the term itself is trivial. However I've realized that the word actually does not translate well into English, and has an interesting and dynamic semantics. The article has some potential to develop, possibly into something different, which I perceived at a threat but hey, evolution is the spirit of wikipedia. Still, I stand that the sources are poor or irrelevant, but I've seen worse :) --Lysy^talk 08:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm glad the article has inspired somebody to research the subject :) As for the sources, hey, if I'd written a perfect article I'd feel bad that I'd left nothing for anyone else to contribute ;) Malick78 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what wikipedia is for ... --Lysy^talk 11:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD this. Is this cake even notable? I admit I've never heard of such a cake... Who is going to search for it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Check google. I was surprised myself. Apparently Malick knows more about this cake. Myself I'll try to find and try some. --Lysy^talk 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real cake, sure. Available in many places around Warsaw, though 'murzynek' is more common. Malick78 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some words are notable.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: I can't see any possible reason to have an article in English WP about a racial slur in Polish or any foreign language, especially when a corresponding article under that heading does not even exist on Polish WP. Sometimes, a foreign language slur may become familiar to English language speakers, like the Japanese "
  WP:NAD, doubly so because the term is practically never used in English except perhaps among Polish speakers. As for the argument that the word is notable because of the the "controversy" that surrounds it in Poland, that's simply balderdash. I've been living in Poland for nine years, speak Polish, read the Polish press and am rather conversant with what is controversial and what is not in Poland. The "controversy" surrounding the word is not particularly notable even in Poland (again, as the lack of an article on Polish WP demonstrates). Not notable enough, by any means, to warrant mention in English WP. The fact that this word has been discussed by Polish scholars doesn't mean much as much the same can be said for thousands of words in the Polish language. That discussion also has very little global relevance outside of Poland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And I in contrast started the article because, while living in Poland and conversing with my young, educated Polish friends, have noticed that the word has a controversial status. As for 'global relevance', that would suggest deleting all articles on Polish villages, non-ministerial MPs, barely-read-outside-Poland books... etc. Wouldn't deleting these be deleterious? Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How conroversial, compared to Ojciec Dyrektor, Smoleńsk, lustracja. in vitro or the American visa question? It certainly doen't make the Top Ten list of controversies in Poland. I'm not that sure it makes teh Top Hundred. See, it's a matter of degree. Now do you think it's notable enough to incude on English WP. Also, the other types of articles you mentioned have their own sepaerate criteria for inclusion in WP. None of those criteria apply here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the fact that the white majority haven't quite twigged that racial terminology is important doesn't mean that it's not. But actually, I do think it makes the top one hundred :) And a Polish MP bothered to talk about it on TV... Think about that: it's hard to get them to do anything :) Malick78 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to get a Polish MP to talk? You miust be kidding. It's all they ever do. Endlessly and ceaselessly about any kind of bullshit under the sun, including Tinky Winky. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The threshold for inclusion on WP is whether multiple reliable sources have discussed the topic in depth. (WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") Here are some instances. [10] is a 10-page journal paper entitled “THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' HAS DONE HIS JOB, MUST THE 'MOOR (NEGRO)' GO? THE HISTORY AND THE FUTURE OF THE WORD 'MURZYN' IN POLISH” and its abstract includes the sentence “There is a repetitive question coming up in publicist sources, how to replace 'Murzyn', if Polish is to follow western languages, in which the word Negro has come out of usage.” Another source is entitled “A NEGRO DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO...'. A STUDY OF SOME ETHNIC METAPHORS’ [11] – its abstract states “The article reports on research whose goal is to analyze the image of black people in the Polish press after 1989. The aim of this work is a presentation of 'ethnic metaphors' with the lexemes 'Murzyn' (Negro), 'czarny' (a black man), 'Kali' (the name of a black hero in the novel 'W pustyni i w puszczy' by Henryk Sienkiewicz), 'Olisadebe' (the surname of a popular African football player, a member of the Polish national team) and others.” Those two articles are pay-to-view, but their abstracts speak to the in-depth coverage point. There is a derogatory form, ‘’murzyny’” as mentioned in the book ‘’Slavic gender linguistics’’ [12]. This article [13] about a Polish explorer, Sygurd Wisniowski, says: “In nineteenth-century Polish, "murzyn" functioned as a semantically neutral designation for "one belonging to a black race. African or American negroes"; its general application was possibly consistent with nineteenth-century anthropologists' attempts to create a terminology to categorise human races-"negro" being one such term. By contrast, Wisniowski's references to Maori employ a more varied, semantically structured set of terms, in which "Murzyn" features only once. Its use in "...parlament, w ktrym zaden Murzyn nie zasiada" [the parliament in which not one Negro serves] is significant in that it highlights both the absence, and the improbability, of any non-European serving in the New Zealand Parliament. As such, it functions as a statement of the inherent inequalities in the system of colonial government and of the author's perception of the European colonists' treatment of any indigenous population simply as another dark-skinned (and therefore unequal) people. In that context, "Murzyn" appears to issue from the mouths of the settlers, and thus could justifiably be translated as "nigger." Put together with the Polish MP’s statement and other material already in the WP article, this strikes me as meeting the notability standard. Novickas (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has encyclopedic value beyond a dictionary definition.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article about the significance of a word that can go beyond the definition is always justified, if there is enough material--as there certainly is here. That the subject term also is found in dictionaries is not reason it would not be here: under that reason, we'd have to remove--among about a million other articles-- the article on Poland. And that the Polish Wikipedia has no corresponding article doesn't affect us if we can show the importance--the different encyclopedias have different coverage guidelines, or perhaps they haven't gotten to it yet, and will now. I'll just comment on two particularly misguided deletion reasons: one, that we ought to cover topics (including words & concepts) in Polish any less than we do English. We're the encyclopedia written in English, covering everything in the world notable enough to have an article for which we have people willing to do the writing--just as do other Wikipedias. Fortunately, many of the people active on other language Wikipedias are active here also, Polish being an excellent example of that, and we are in a better position to take advantage of that than some other Wikipedias may be. And another misguided reason that is fundamentally behind some of the delete opinions for words like this: that we do not cover topics which make some particular group look bad--that we might not want to recognize the fact that a particular language has a opprobrious term for outsiders; this is a failure to recognize the basic nature of NPOV and NOT CENSORED. The world includes a lot of unpleasant things, and they're part of the domain of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, with salt. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hara

Kira Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find a single reliable source covering the game. Delete per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note—check article history if things look weird, article creator just removed afd template, although i restored it. (and warned) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two-line article. Zero sources. No news hits. Regular google hits almost all for other stuff. There does seem to have been a bulletin board discussion on it, once. Also, there's a Facebook page that might be related. Fails
  notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I prodded this in June, and it was deleted then. My rationale was "Can not verify the existence of this game, or of its stated developer, let alone find a reliable source. The claim that it was banned in South Korea should be easily sourced if true. Further, the article states it was for the Mac OS, but the stated release date predates the Macintosh by two years. Dubious. WP:N". The dubious details I noted are not included in this recreated version, but the delete-worthy notability arguments would appear to still hold. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it should be deleted and protected from recreation. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most citations self-referential, the remainder were trivial mentions. No evidence that the awards themselves have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (
  WP:TRIVCOV). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the deletion review whic will be quoted here-in as follows: "The article in questioned violated many principles of
  verifiability, if not rendering it impossible." ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 00:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Merge with
  Wrestling Observer. As posted by Vodello and myself, a large variety of sources
  cited the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards to describe a professional wrestler's accolades, therefore it must be of high significance in the world of pro wrestling. The first three sources focus primarily on professional wrestling, while the rest of the sources are primarily non-wrestling related.

• PWTorch.com described Kenta Kobashi as "the greatest Japanese wrestler ever", and that "this statement... is not one made without support from within the industry", justifying this claim by citing Kobashi winning the WON's Wrestler of the Year award and Match of the Year award in 2003, 2004, 2005. [14]
• SLAM! Wrestling cited
  Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year [15]
• Wrestleview.com backed up Chris Jericho's "extensive" resume by citing that Jericho "won Feud of the Year, Match of the Year, Wrestler of the Year, and Best In Interviews in 2008 by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. He also won Best in Interviews in 2003. He also won Reader's Favorite Wrestler in 1999 as well as Most Underrated Wrestler in 1999 and 2000." [16]
• Newsday described Chris Benoit as winning the Outstanding Wrestler of the Year and Wrestler of the Year awards
• VH1 described Chris Jericho as "2009 Wrestler of the Year by the Wrestling Observer newsletter"[17]
• The
  South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussed on January 2, 2004 whether or not Brock Lesnar
  should receive the Wrestling Observer Wrestler of the Year award for 2003.
• The
  Mitsuhara Misawa
  as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year
• The Toronto Star referred to Jumbo Tsuruta as The Wrestling Observer's 1991 Wrestler of the Year, also citing the magazine as "highly respected".
• On November 1, 1991, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Ric Flair as an eight-time winner of the Wrestler of the Year award.
• The Democrat and Chronicle out of Rochester also refers to Misawa, describing him as Wrestling Observer's Wrestler of the Year in 1995, 1997, and 1999.
• On December 30, 1988, The
  Big Bubba Rogers
  , or the Big Bossman, as the Wrestling Observer's Most Improved Wrestler of 1987
• The Sun (United Kingdom) described Bryan Danielson as four-time Most Outstanding Wrestler and five-time Best Technical Wrestler per the Wrestling Observer.[18]
• The Montgomery Advertiser
  also mentioned Danielson's accolades above, as well as being owner of 2007's Match of the Year award.
• UGO Networks also mentioned Danielson's Best Tech award.[19]
• In the
  Georges St. Pierre as "2008-2009 Most Outstanding Fighter by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter"[20]
• Yahoo! Sports mentions Karo Parisyan vs Diego Sanchez was WON's 2006 MMA match of the year.[21]
• A second article from Yahoo! Sports with another match of the year noted.[22]
• Sports Illustrated also mentioned the awards. "Jackson's fight with Lindland placed seventh in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's voting for fight of the year. Henderson is known for a more exciting style than Lindland, and Saturday's high stakes clash could be a classic confrontation."[23]

Now that the importance of these awards in the professional wrestling realm has been established, I'd vouch for the article to be kept or at least, merged with a parent article of

Wrestling Observer. Starship.paint (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: Notable awards given by a long time newsletter in the wrestling industry, one even used by many promotions today and in the past as a means to focus on the industry. Editor Dave Meltzer is credited as a long time historian of wrestling by many in the business today, such as by Bret Hart in his autobiography "Hitman: My real life in the cartoon world of wrestling".--WillC 02:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability certainly established by mentions in numerous reliable sources. If the awards were non-notable, they wouldn't be mentioned as significant accomplishments when wrestlers are discussed in publications all around the world. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the staggering amount of references listed above from the DRV that show these awards have been deemed a notable measure of a professional wrestler's accomplishments since at least 1988. I firmly believe this list passes
  WP:LISTN, and should be kept. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per the same rationale I posted to the previous deletion review. There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "These are not notable awards." If they're not notable awards, why have we found many reliable third-party sources independent from wrestling from as far back as 1988 citing these awards to describe a wrestler's accomplishments? For the fun of it? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TRIVCOV ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's wrong and you've already been told so by administrator User:Jclemens.[24] We can't ignore all of these references. You can, but I would expect others that haven't gotten emotional and overly personal over these discussions to keep their fingers out of their ears and realize these are in fact notable awards. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The significance of their coverage in reliable sources is note worthy. I will not deny that. But I believe it to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself, not in a standalone article

  By who?"? Simply stated, this article has to many issues. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 04:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You believe the contents of the article "to be note worthy for inclusion in the primary article for the Wrestling Observer itself", yet you voted Delete instead of Merge? Hmm? And well, the awards are considered prestigious because when citing a wrestler's achievements, so many organizations (as I have provided above) choose to back the achievements up with these awards? Isn't there a level of prestige there? Starship.paint (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In the form of a passing mention, yes. If the publication has it's own awards, I think that should be mentioned on it's main article. But I do not think such an award list deserves its own article when it's not notable enough to carry it. Because that's what it amounts to in every single source cited above. All of them follow the same pattern in mentioning that a person has been the recipient of an award, but none actually comment on the award or why it is prestigious which yet again - without evidence to the contrary - shows evidence of subjective reasoning and the assigning of undue weight on the part of persons and not the industry. Many organizations? What organizations? A few news organizations gave passing mentions in the form of "[subject] is the recipient of the such-and-such award, the such-and-such award, and the wrestling observer such-and-such award". Each and every one of them gives a passing in that form. No wrestling organization (even a minor independent and certainly none of the major ones) has been

  cited as even acknowledging the existence of these awards. Not a single one. I ask again, with everything on the table, why does this deserve it's own article, and will any of these concerns be addressed by anyone? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep -Deserves its own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11111 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify. They'll just thump
  one of these policies in your face and it'll actually only serve to help them delete the article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Additional clarification required, per
  WP:JUSTAVOTE ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Notability clearly established in the given references.
  talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I don't have a problem with all the material being on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter article, though that may make it very unwieldy. Either way, numerous other wrestling sources, including respected publications like PWTorch and non-specific sources like The Sun newspaper and Canadian Online Explorer, refer to the awards. Bret Hart and Mick Foley among others cite Dave Meltzer and the publication in their memoirs, making it of note. As for sources, this year's newsletter listed every winner in history of the still active awards, along with the top 3 for this year. Tony2Times (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It listed inactive award winners as well. Currently every single winner listed on the article is sourced.
  talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per starship paint. This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry, and companies have taken note of them, and been influenced by them (eg, "Piggie James" storyline being dropped almost immediately after winning Most Disgusting Tactic, and winner of 5 or so awards Daniel Bryan showing up around the same time)
  Crisis.EXE 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "This is a series of awards that is highly regarded in the wrestling industry" -

  subjective reasoning based on coincidence. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Weak Keep - As reflected in talk page discussion on multiple articles and the large number of vandalism-related edits to this article, Dave Meltzer and the cult of personality surrounding him has been a point of contention. This has long been the case; in fact, it has existed long before the advent of the self-proclaimed/self-styled "Internet Wrestling Community." Someone decided to take a cheap shot at me for pointing this out, despite the fact that prime evidence of this exists mostly in the still-deleted talk page of this article. Two other concerns: I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation. Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer? The other concern was due to undue weight because the present-day major wrestling promotions in the United States don't acknowledge these awards. Never mind that this is the Internet, after all, which is read by and accessible to the entire world, and presenting an American-centric view represents undue weight in and of itself. Since I don't read Japanese-language text (as I suspect would be the case with most people reading this), has anyone investigated whether publications such as Baseball Magazine Sha or Weekly Gong have referenced the awards, especially since Meltzer began traveling to Japan in the mid 1980s? Back to undue weight, a far more relevant example of undue weight is in filling untold numbers of pro wrestling-related articles with gratuitous references to WWE, TNA and ROH, even and especially when unwarranted, and ignoring proper historical perspective and/or proper worldwide perspective. Speaking of proper historical perspective, my primary complaint with the article has been that the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred. As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent" or whether these references made their way into print or onto the web due to Meltzer's journalistic connections.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment- "As for third-party references, I question whether many of them could truly be called "independent"" - That's an argument for deletion, not keeping.
  "Do you mean to tell me that we have to wait for David Crockett to die before we're allowed to point out what a God-awful embarrassment he was as a wrestling announcer?" - Er... I'm not going to list the policies that would violate, regardless of whether he's alive or not.
  "I keep hearing of BLP violations, with no real explanation." - Here's a quote from

  WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
  "the early award winners have been presented in the article with little regard for accuracy WRT the promotions in which the wrestlers performed or the events occurred" - Isn't that another case for deletion? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No. It isn't. This is grasping at straws for unrelated policies. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it is. I suggest you study Wikipedia's policies a little more carefully. Particularly

  WP:AGF, as you've demonstrated little understanding of that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  First they say read

  WP:AGF, then immediately follow it with a passive aggressive snipe. Classic. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (

  WP:PW. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If at first you don't succeed, snipe, snipe the keep voters? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If you so choose to take it that way, that is your prerogative. I'm personally waiting to see evidence of this cabal of Anti-Meltzer's he speaks of and has spoken of ever since this article was first nominated for deletion. Come to think of it, I'm personally waiting for anyone to address the legitimate concerns I raised here - twice; and that's in addition to raising the same concerns on the DRV where it went unanswered and continues to be unanswered here. Come to think of it, no one has even addressed the point made by the user who was under the IP:82.19.4.7 on the DRV (See the DRV for preceding context): "So ignore half of the analogy, industry awards which appear everywhere. Then do the same as above and ignore the common sense meaning of the analogy and make up your own to make a strawman. No one has said some random kid in walmart that's your construction (so if anyone is trying to derail the discussion it's those trying to build the strawmen arguments rather than actually trying to understand where the difference in opinion lies). If there are people who are notable enough to get coverage in third party reliable sources and all of them include in their bio that particular walmart certificate, that's the closer analogy to the situation here. "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage" - and that's the problem, everyone is asking you to show that coverage - i.e. coverage of the award where are the third party sources talking directly in detail about the awards (not lists of winners, not talking about people and noting they won the award, but coverage about the award itself)." Is there anyone who will address their concerns and my own? Anyone at all? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  better sources being found when the pressure is on. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]