Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gweilo

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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gweilo[edit]

Delete - First, I doubt if this term is widely accepted as a word in English. Wikipedia is not foreign-language dictionary. Second, this is a racist term. Should it still be kept in Wikipedia? - Alanmak 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - First, some papers like HK Magazine and South China Morning Post use the term. Second, it's insensical to say no racist term is allowed. Tell me more about nigger. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you meant "Keep". Shawnc 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search brings up 357,000 hits, with many direct references to this in the first page. The article needs to be referenced, but that seems easy to do. A notable and common (and to me, interesting) term. Grandmasterka 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An alternative spelling is gwailo. — Insta ntnood 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I didn't know it was a racist term? Very commonly used in Toronto. I always get told not to order gweilo dishes at the Chinese restaurants. I was always wondering what that meant.-- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable. Being a racist slur is not a criteria for deletion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A term definitely heard of in English. enochlau (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term, which Wikipedia can include from any language. Objectionable content is not grounds for deletion. See Category:Pejorative terms for people. Shawnc 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedic article about a phrase fairly commonly used in English. I get 42 hits for the word in a search of an Australia New Zealand database. Capitalistroadster 08:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term is very common in Hong Kong and among Cantonese-speakers, and while it might have been coined as a racist insult, it is now also used by gweilos themselves without these overtones. Article is encyclopedic and informative; the AfD nomination itself suggests that it is useful, as there are people unfamiliar with the term and its connotations. ProhibitOnions 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable perjorative term for whitey. Proto||type 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. It's a word. It's a concept. It's important.Vizjim 15:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've no objection on content... but where is the evidence this is notable loanword that is commonly used?--Isotope23 16:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I first heard this word in suburban america decades ago. SchmuckyTheCat 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well understood word/phrase by many, and frankly the fact that it is not an "English word" does not disqualify it. The fact that it is racist also does not disqualify it (there are entries for almost every racist word out there). In fact, as the article points out, it is no longer really racist anyway. Bssc81 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia. As several people said above, "it's a word". This is a mere dictionary definition. Furthermore, it's a definition which already exists at Wiktionary. There is nothing here other than a definition, pronunciation and usage guide. We've requested expansion several times and it remains a mere dicdef. Replace with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I think the moment that an article discusss the history of the word or its social context is the moment that it transcends a dicdef. enochlau (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2006 (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.