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 both consensus and nomination witdrawn. Luke! 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chink[edit]

Chink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is merely a dictionary definition, and at best could be an article about a word, not about a subject, which violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Xyzzyplugh 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Keep Article has been expanded, and it is no longer just a definition. Pablothegreat85 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs expansion on usage and history, like Nigger and Spic, and other articles listed under Category:Ethnic slurs. It doesn't need deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage and history are part of a dictionary definition. Making a simple dictionary definition into an extensive dictionary definition wouldn't change the fact that this violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You bring up a good point, though. We do have some articles which are merely about words, rather than about subjects. Presumably, these are unusually notable words which due to their notability make it reasonable for them to belong here. Is "chink" an unusually notable word? --Xyzzyplugh 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, for being a racial slur, and one of the worse ones for those of East Asian descent. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you believe that all racial slurs are inherently super-notable, so that we should have articles on racial slurs but not on any other type of words? --Xyzzyplugh 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said we should not have articles on "any other type of words". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. —dgies^t_c 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No longer a dicdef and has sources. —dgies^t_c 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be all for a Merge and Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C per discussion, but noting also that we're not a dictionary. Maybe delete is more appropriate. --Dennisthe2 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per expanded article. Good job. --Dennisthe2 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'm torn between deleting it and merging it with List of ethnic slurs#C. It fits in with the article, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we merge this one and then if you want you can make an AfD for List of ethnic slurs? —dgies^t_c 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge' to Chinaman (racial term) George Leung 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Nigger --Evergreens78 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many articles in Category:Slang --Ishu 03:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Notable topic, but not enough content to justify a stand-alone article and avoid WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. List of ethnic slurs seems reasonable. The article can be kept, or spun off in the future, if someone would add more content and sourcing. --Shirahadasha 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to 'Keep. Agree sufficient content and sourcing has been added to avoid previous difficulties and justify a keep. --Shirahadasha 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Nigger --Oreo Priest 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an awful lot said at Nigger right now but almost nothing at Chink. Why not merge it now and if/when it becomes substantial it can be split off? —dgies^t_c 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per above, along with Nigger and Beaner. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. The article as it stands now is nothing more than a brief dictionary definition. An article can be created if/when an editor expands it to cover cultural and historical significance. --Muchness 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep post expansion, now a legitimate encyclopedic article with potential for further growth. --Muchness 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wiktionary has it already. Keep, article has been expanded beyond a dicdef. Good work. —Scott5114↗ 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then Redirect Dfrg.msc 09:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. I'd say merge, but if "describes eyes as shaped as chinks." is the standard over there, I'll keep the much better article here. Shenme 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we have nigger etc... this is on a similar level of notability. Thus I'd assume it ought to be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article has been significantly expanded, so deletion and merge nominators may want to reconsider their votes. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep highly notable even if it may cause offence. MLA 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Claims that this is a mere dicdef are unfounded - it may have been earlier but the current article is more than a dicdef WilyD 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable ethnic slur. It's sourced and more than a dicdef. And there's also quite a bit of potential for expansion.Chunky Rice 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per revised format and WP:SNOWRaveenS 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable ethnic slur. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Referenced, fleshed-out. Caknuck 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's in good enough shape now. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has been sufficiently expanded and referenced, although the term itself should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WP:SNOW - The stubbiness of an article means it needs to be expanded, not deleted (see: WP:WINAD#Fixing_bad_stubs). The subject clearly merits its own article beyond just defining the term; whole books have been written on it. Bobanny 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nominator, I no longer support deletion of this article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:58, 24 March 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.