Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gingerism

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 and redirect to Red hair. Sr 13 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerism

Neologism, though I was not sufficiently sure that this counted as a "Newly-coined neologism" which would have been grounds for speedy delete as per WP:DELETE, number 10. Yamla 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN neologism, seems to have been used in a BBC online magazine once and that's it. Lurker 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been substatially used in British media not just by the BBC. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gingerism Jayneyalice 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is in wide use in the UK, and the subject it describes is one that should be discussed: there is a British prejudice against people with red hair, for some reason. See reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] JulesH 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Red hair#Negative attitudes towards redheads? FiggyBee 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per FiggyBee. NawlinWiki 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It might be a BBC Neologism, but it a Neologism none the less. The BBC termed it purely for shock value in that article and to place it anywhere on here would affirm it's status and be an entirely negative choice. Perhaps if without wikipedia's help it reaches some larger status (i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) it can be included at some later date, but for now it has no place on Wikipedia. It does not have wide spread use in the UK as stated above. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For above reasons. --Sdornan 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(i hope we don't get quite this pathetic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs) [Clearly quoting from Jimmi Hugh's foregoing comment.]

Note: Jayneyalice tacked User:Jimmi Hugh's signature on the above comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC). further note - Jayneyalice did not tak his signature to the above comment but did reference or attempt to reference that the above quote is a quotation from the wiki user Jimmi Hugh - the following comment was initially signed by me and i am unsure as to why it has been marked as otherwise and is clearly my response to this quotation from the above comments by jimmi hugh.Jayneyalice 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be heavily influence by POV rather than actual word usage. http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=8669 (another use of the term not BBC based) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneyalice (talk • contribs)

Had you checked the date of that article, you would see that it was posted the day following the BBC article "Is gingerism as bad as racism?". Clearly some people are going to copy use of the term for articles, but it still does not see wide spread usage, mostly because no one out side of the research done into it considers it as such. The only related term seeing great usage here is "Gingervitus", but there are definetly no signs of the majority of the population taking up use of the term "Gingerism". My opinion on this articles deleteion is definetly not based upon POV, i could not care less either way, i only wish to improve Wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then why bother adding in the "I hope we don't get that pathetic" line into your comment. There is a great deal of unpleasantness leveled at redheads based on their colouring - whether you wish to consider the term a neologlism or not - the inference with your statement is that this shouldn't be taken seriously. Jayneyalice 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you attempt to bring me down to your level. I obviously do not think that the act of bullying Gingers should not be taken seriously, i just hope the world doesn't get any more pathetic in assigning yet another unneeded word to it and creating even more rifts in a futile "attempt" to sort the problem. You clearly have no idea about either people nor the mind and i would rather you did not try to infer meaning from my statements which are clearly not present. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps then you should have actually thought about how your comment came across before makign it - it reads snidley and inappropriatly. I have not attacked you, i have merely pointed out that the use of your parenthesis here has an invalidating effect on any statement you have made - it looks as though you have made an attacking comment based on your own opinion that it's not valid to recognise one form of discrimination. Often to deal with a problem you have to accept its there - you can't just say "only this form of bullying and unpleasantness exists - we chose to name only this and deal with only this" which seems to be very much the problem regarding this an a lot of other issues. You are not descending to my level by name callign and using personal insults - i have directed none at you. Perhaps in future you may find it easier to avoid unnecessary confict over matters like this by not inserting unqualified personal opinion into your comments. The meaning is inferable there - otherwise I would not have inferred it - i am a stranger to you and whilst I would like to argue the case for the inclusion or acknowledgement of "gingerism" in wikipedia (whether it be merged into another article or have its own space as a seperate article) I have no personal gripesd with other people disaggreeing with me unless they chose to take the percieved attitude that "it's pathetic" to acknowledge that a form of bullying and discrimination occurs purely because they have never been at the recieving end of it. Jayneyalice 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems to have some usage but not enough for it to be more than a neologism yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism Bigdaddy1981 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per FiggyBee Pnkrockr 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete The less people know about gingerism, the easier it is to discriminate against those filthy redheads!--Perceive 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly hope you are making a stupid joke. I use the term "joke" loosely. --Evb-wiki 02:59, 3 July 2007 (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.