Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gora (racial epithet)

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 merge to List of ethnic slurs. As the outcome that appears acceptable to the greatest number of participants.  Sandstein  07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gora (racial epithet)

Gora (racial epithet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:DICDEF Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason the nom mentioned. There are sources and at least some of them appear reliable, but they all simply define the term. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Actually even on Wiktionary I don't think this would work on the English site, because it isn't an English word. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary includes all words in all languages, not just English words, but in the native script. Gora would have to be an entry for the word in English (or another Latin-alphabet language); the Hindi entry would be at wikt:गोरा or however it's spelled in Devanagari. That said, this is already more than a dicdef; it's an encylopedia article about a word, so keep. Angr (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Doesn't give encyclopedic worth to the term. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly much more than a dictionary definition, seems discussed in sources, notable, not differently (sadly) from other slurs. --Cyclopia^talk 17:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• I find it surprising that nobody has addressed certain key points. The "it's a dicdef" camp have failed to consider that wiktionary don't have this definition. We certainly shouldn't delete material our sister projects need, so in my view the "delete" !votes need to explain why they don't recommend transwiki and soft redirect to wiktionary. The "it's more than a dicdef" camp have failed to explain why it doesn't get the same treatment as most of our other ethnic slurs, so in my view the "keep" !votes need to explain why they don't recommend smerge and redirect to list of ethnic slurs. Either outcome seems much better than a straight "keep" or "delete" to me.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The amount of content makes a merge in the list unsuitable. --Cyclopia^talk 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "merge", I said "smerge" (a potentially unfamiliar word so I bluelinked it).—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, sorry. Still my objection stands. I don't see reason for a smerge, not any more than for simply keeping the article (simplest option, WP:PRESERVE, subject is notable anyway). --Cyclopia^talk 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't see this as a dictionary definition, then? I ask because it seems to consist of (1) a definition and (2) usage notes. It's true that Wikipedia does have articles about words----thou is my favourite example----but in such cases there's always something encyclopaedic to say, and I'm not sure what non-dictionary content the "keep" side in this debate wish to add.—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, thou doesn't seem much less a dictionary definition: it's just larger, but the type of content is the same. In WP:NOTDIC we read: That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. -and that's what the current article does. --Cyclopia^talk 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've somehow missed that. It would help me to understand your point if you could say exactly where in the article it goes beyond definition, etymology and usage, please?—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here:

In place names that date back to the colonial era - there are a number of graveyards in Pakistan such as the Gora Qabristan in Peshawar, which is a graveyard for Britons, [1] as well as one in Chillianwala, the site of a famous battle involving the British East India Company.[2] According to the Natyasastra, an Indian text, the term refers to "yellowish-reddish".[3] Because of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's explicitly yellow skin, he was termed "Gauranga".[4]

Again, if this is mere dicdef, so is the bulk of thou. --Cyclopia^talk 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. You see those three sentences as transforming this from a dicdef into an encyclopaedic article? I ask because to me they looked like an etymology.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They sound to me like an example of content about cultural significance, and they don't seem an etymology at all. For the third time, this is not different from your favourite article thou: where I see basically only usage and etymology (even if a lot of it). If you are consistent as well, and you think this kind of content is mere dictionary, please go nominate thou under the same premise. Personally, I think both this article and thou have merit as standalone encyclopedia articles, and they are not mere dictionary entries. I guess we can agree to disagree. --Cyclopia^talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect to the List of ethnic slurs. Not enough in terms of reliable sources -- I see only one such in the current version, and one link is very dead. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Smerge to List of ethnic slurs; not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I accept the argument that it is sufficiently informative to be encyclopedic. At the very least, merge as suggested. The reason we are here is to make an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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.