Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor baby

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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor baby

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not in general and certainly not for bits of stray jargon. This article is not an encyclopedic topic. At best the concept of an "anchor baby" could maybe be mentioned as a section, with proper cites, in some more appropriate article, but it just doesn't fit Wikipedia article standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but this term still deserves its entry. It passes WP:N, WP:DICTIONARY, WP:NEO and WP:WORD (Though WP:WORD is a connected issue, not policy). Also, the article is properly referenced and passes WP:V. The article has sources such as The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, so even if you wanted to call it a neologism, you still couldn't deny that it has secondary, encyclopedic sources to back up its notability. Not to mention the relevance of the term Anchor baby in article such as Illegal immigration, Wetback (slur), Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, and Immigration reduction to name a few. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetback (slur) should also probably be deleted or merged elsewhere as an example of some real topic, but the rest you named have no bearing on whether this article should exist because they aren't merely neologistic jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously suggesting one of the most notable ethnic slurs in American history be "deleted or merged"?! --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I will suggest that the request for deletion originated due to some 'unknown' person's dislike for the term, and not due to any real issue pertaining to its worth. The justification for the deletion request itself is weak. Then again, the article has gone through several editing wars... Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really used in most of those articles - it's just a wikilink or mentioned in passing as a derogatory term. Ethnic slurs are problematic, but we don't avoid problematic content here. I'll add my "keep" vote below, on that basis. Wikidemo (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by Leonard.Nrswanson (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly visible and controversial topic which occurs frequently in political discourse. Nomination borders on reckless; 67k Google hits, 282 google news hits, with frequent mentions in the headlines or lead paragraphs. RayAYang (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable political jargon relating to US immigration policy, backed by reliable sources. Conceivably a subtopic of something else, but better off standalone as there are multiple choices. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Leonard. - Schrandit (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I agree with Leonard. I have never heard of any term which does not have the potential to be an encyclopedia topic. I believe the deletion criteria exist to remove articles which contain no discernible factual information, or which exist solely to 'shock' or 'entertain' the reader. If a person might search for a term on Google to find out what it is and learn about it, then it belongs on Wikipedia. In fact, googling Anchor Baby to learn about the term is how I first came to the Wikipedia article, proof in itself that it contains encyclopedic value. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I would also point out that many of the issues pertaining to the term have only recently gained their own Wikipedia pages. In fact, Anchor baby contains more information about Chain migration than Chain migration. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Encyclopedia articles about words are not automatically "dicdefs". This is a rather good encyclopedia article about this word, well written and fully sourced. An article like this is totally outside the scope of a dictionary and totally within the scope of Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable epithet. Article is documented with reliable secondary sources. As for the nominator's suggestion to delete/merge Wetback (slur), I would oppose that also. That term is even more notable, and has a much longer history than does "anchor baby". In fact, the "wetback" article should probably be expanded, given its long history, and the likely amount of reliable information available about the epithet. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The topic could probably be covered adequately by merging its content and sources into Birthright citizenship in the United States of America and turning "anchor baby" into a redirect. If the existing article is kept, the amount of overlap with material in the "birthright citizenship" article should definitely be minimized. Richwales (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately notable neologism. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but if enough exists maybe we can derive an observation about practice. We do have articles about slurs - wetaback, Welfare queen, Kike, Sambo (racial term), Shiksa, Guido (slang), on and on. In fact most have articles. What takes this above the level of a mere neologism (widespread usage seems to date only back to 2006) is that it's become associated with advocates for immigration reduction. So it is at the tip of a phenomenon. The article is correct in focusing on the phenomenon of the term as a reflection of people's sentiment about immigration, and not the phenomenon it purportedly describes. Thus, just like the N word is an article about the objectionable slang rather than the people who it's applied to, so is this article about the word and not the US citizens who some people wish were not citizens. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a response to the above I do not think we should merge with "birthright citizenship", which is a broader concept that most people consider legitimate and not worthy of derogation. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The particularly derogatory use of this term, distinct from the simple notion of "birthright citizenship," merits its keeping its own entry. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 10 August 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.