Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggerati

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, after a very impressive salvage job by UncleG. Good work. DS (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerati[edit]

Not notable and in violation of WP:NEO and WP:NAD. Lacks inline and verifiable references and is never likely to grow beyond stub status. Not in general use. More suitable for something like Urban Dictionary than wikipedia.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable neologism/jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative article on neologism of no provable currency. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question The term is apparently discussed in the Tina Barr article listed as a reference. Has anyone gotten a hold of it and seen how much it discusses the term? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard terminology in the field. Besides the article cited in J.Modern Literature, the first 7 ghits yield two more good ones, one from Modern Language Review, another from [Washignton City Paper], It was introduced by the extremely important writer Zora Neale Hurston and consequently will be found in all discussions of her work or based on her writings. The nom and the first pile-on deletes must have never even thought to check Google. Whether it is used colloquially at the present time is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I wonder if the above user has thought to check WP:NEO and WP:NAD. The fact that it has been used in an academic journal is neither here nor there: that would open the gates to literally thousands of pieces of jargon, which are specifically excluded by wikipedia policy. Regardless of the notability and status of those who have used the term, it is still a neologism without widespread common use. If the above user is arguing that what the term describes is notable, they may have a case but the resulting article ought to be entitled Black intelligentsia or suchlike, and would have to differ massively from this one in terms of contents. Words in and of themselves, particularly slang terms, do not merit entries explaining their meaning or etymology (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and that is all this article does or is ever likely to do. Moreover, they seem to be suggesting that it is notable primarily because it was coined by a notable figure: that being the case, what does this page achieve that could not be achieved by briefly mentioning the term's coining on the Zora Neale Hurston page, especially since this page is never likely to progress beyond a stub?
As it happens, I did check Google and a search returns only 7630 hits, which is very low for a single word search. Moreover, on my Google search, the top seven hits were the Wikipedia article, the Urban Dictionary article, and the rest related to a blog ring.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do a better Google search, eliminating Wikipedia and its mirrors, and stop counting hits. Counting Google hits is not research. Reading what the search turns up is research. DGG has shown the way. Actually read the pages returned, to see whether they are sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken, out of interest, a cursory look at this. Number of Google hits isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of notability, particularly for phenomena that arose prior to the widespread use of teh Internets. The term itself seems to have originated from Wallace Thurman, in whose article it is mentioned, and later used in a stricter literary sense (and probably by derivation) by Zora Neale Hurston. In an academic sense, therefore, as a self-referential term used by African-American authors and literary critics, it may have some validity. The blogs have merely borrowed it, in the sense that rap groups have reclaimed "Niggers" as "Niggaz" in the sense of an ironic or satirical reclamation of identity. However, I note that the original article was created by an IP address, which means that the article is of some antiquity, and that it hasn't been expanded since may indicate that the term isn't that important; but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Some of the references may be overlapping and obscure, but they are there. That it isn't in common currency is irrelevant; neither is the Code of Hammurabi --Rodhullandemu 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether articles take years to expand means nothing, in fact. Our article on North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years to progress beyond a two-sentence stub. The lack of expansion of a subject reflects the inability or unwillingness of Wikipedia editors to write, and not anything about the subject itself. The notability of a subject is determined by the amount and provenance of the sources, if any, that are available. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the word was coined by a notable person doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. It doesn't seem to get enough notable coverage to move from being a neologism to a word worthy of an article. Themfromspace (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is, literally, encyclopaedic, in that it gets a two page entry in the Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance (Cary D. Wintz, Paul Finkelman; Taylor & Francis, 2004. 906–907. ISBN 9781579584580). It's also discussed in The Cambridge Companion to the Harlem Renaissance and in the "From House Niggers to Niggerati" chapter of Asim's The N Word. And those are just the top three books that came up on a Google Books search. There are plenty of sources and plenty of scope for expansion to talk about the Niggerati, Niggerati Manor, and various closely related biographical and social issues. This is a stub encyclopaedia article in need of refactoring and expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG and Uncle G. There are more than enough sources here that this is not a neologism and has enough content to make an entry which is much more than a dic-def. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's logic and evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Uncle G. My first instinct was to delete, but they convince me: this is a case where I think the problem is not a BS article but not enough Wikipedians skilled in research. Can I ask DGG and UncleG perhaps to comment on the article talk page, to provide some concrete suggestion for other editors as to how to go about researching to improve the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]
- Note My fear, essentially, is that any expanded article will end up being a history of the word itself, rather than the phenomenon it purports to describe (which, I'm sure, is very deserving of an article). That would do nothing to address WP:NAD issues, regardless of the quality of sources used. Moreover, I believe than an article on the phenomenon would be better placed under a simple descriptive title, although I'd be happy to mute this latter concern, and thus withdraw the nomination, if Slrubenstein's proposal was adequately followed through. Please note that an admin with have to create the talk page; ordinary registered users are blocked from doing so because of concerns it will become a vandalism magnet (hence why I had to get an admin to create this page for me): that in itself ought to give pause for thought regarding whether or not we want to have an article dealing with black intellectuals under this title when a simple descriptive would suffice, but as I say, I'm prepared to let it go.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cut and pasted constructive comments from this page to the article talk page. I also partially protected it because of your quite valid concerns. If a consensus emerges to delete the page, this will all be over in a few days. If we keep the page, we need a functioning talk page so some editors - I hope - will work to improve it! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The talk page has never (until now) been protected, according to the protection log. Whatever notice you saw, it was not caused by protection of either the article or the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually next on my list after placement syntax (which has now been nominated for deletion). Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I hadn't know about Thurman's use--so it turns out more interesting than I thought. Incidentally, even a history of a word inevitably talks about how the word is used, & if done if full, is also to a considerable extent a history of the phenomenon. And if the article is about the concept, for concepts like this, which are a particular way of looking at things, it's I think much less confusing to use the original vocabulary. But there's a really important point in FrFinton's last comment--we ought never omit having an article because it would be possible to misuse it--that would be CENSORship, and a violation of the basic concept of a NPOV encyclopedia. There seem to be several people interested in watching the article, so there's nothing much to fear. I'd defer semi-protection until the vandalism occurs. It's not that obvious a place to find for the bored & stupid. DGG (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think semi-protection enables lots of editors to edit ... but if ANY other admin wants to remove the protection, I will not object; I think admins should feel free to rvet one another if they think one has been overzealous and I won't complain. I do hope people voting here for "keep" will pitch in a little and make the article something more like what they think is worth keeping. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a neologism, but a legitimate historical term around the Harlem Renaissance. See Wallace Thurman for further information. Might be in rough shape now, but there is a legitimate shot at improving this. Deletion would not be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and would the kind editors who found the references that irrefutably demonstrate notability be good enough to add citations to them in the article? Bongomatic 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done more than that. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Uncle G. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the now improved article is both encyclopedic and has addressed the nom's concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 28 November 2008 (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.