Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dago dazzler (2nd nomination)

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dago dazzler

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

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

This was kept 10 years ago but as one of the discutants noted back then this is a nicely done piece of... research. So, WP:OR is a major issue, in addition to the initial nom's concern that this is a WP:DICTDEF (just beefed up with OR). Google Scholar has nothing, Google Books has a few hits but only about 15 or so with any previable content (which showcases how niche this issue is - a WP:GNG redflag). This is a rare English language term that would indeed make for a very interesting paper to be published, alas, Wikipedia is not the place to do this. The current article we have is simply a list of the uses of this rare term in some books and documents, plus a bit of OR/essay-ish speculations on its origins and meaning. PS. I found a one-sentece or so definition in [1], and another one in [2], but they don't help with the issue that this rare term pretty much fails WP:SIGCOV (WP:GNG). So all we could get after all the OR (examples and their OR analysis and other speculations) is cut is a one-two sentence stub that fails GNG... in other words, the original nom in 2010 was right on spot - this is just a DICTDEF, mixed with OR. PPS. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, we could perhaps add a referenced sentence to letter of credence and redirect this there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I am genuinely shocked this has survived. Dago is British offensive slang for a Spanish or Italian (southern Mediterranean) person. The conceit in this piece of unpleasant OR is that you can dazzle a dago with a fancy document or ribbon. Get rid of it, and quickly. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexandermcnabb just a note that many ethnic slurs are notable and Wikipedia is not censored. So the term being offensive is not relevant to whether the subject should be deleted or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus Understood, cap'n. But this isn't even a notable slur! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexandermcnabb Aye, now that's a more serious problem. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially a dictionary definition (WP:DICTDEF). In fact, there is an entry in Wiktionary. See dago dazzler. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There is a great deal more in this article than a DICTDEF, giving examples with references. I wondered whether to call for merger to Letter of credence, but find that to relate solely to diplomatic relations. I have periodically been asked to produce a letter of recommendation in order to access archives. Last time I was asked I had to produce a copy of a letter perhaps 20 years old, which felt awkward. "dago" is certainly offensive. Perhaps Letter of academic credence could be a rename target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggesting an OR name on top of this OR content is not the best way to go forward. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a dictionary definition and original research.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This dictionary definition should be deleted long back. 1друг (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2021 (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.