Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockney (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 keep on the issue of "keep" vs "delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Any OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mockney

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

I am nominating this article for deletion mainly because it is an article about a word, in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A more serious problem is with WP:Living persons policies, since it in effect is labeling quite a number of people as being dishonest because they assume Cockney accents to play roles in movies or TV or for other reasons. The article was kept in 2005 but that seems to be mostly "I like it" votes without these issues being brought up at all. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the article just explains what a "Mockney" is it is just a dictionary definition. If it gives examples (of living persons) then it is slandering those people based on someone else's opinion. Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure calling someone a 'Mockney' is actually slander, but I can se the BLP problem. Definitely a word for a dictionary, but not for Wikipedia: unencyclopedic, innit ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cockney. The information on the meaning and use of the word can be given there, no one's name need be mentioned, and more people will see it. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cockney. The UK is highly class-conscious and the word, along with its practice, has ramifications there. It references everything from the spread of the Estuary accent across the country to popular London/East End mythology, such as Blur's 'Parklife' or the films of Guy Ritchie. --68.36.136.24 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is far from (and could be even further) a dictionary definition, as it extends to cover the cultural implications of the label. See also Plastic Paddy, as an extensive example of how such a subject can be treated.

A merge to Cockney would be utterly wrong. Mockney is the antithesis of Cockney, has almost no geographical overlap with it and is of recent origin. The BLP issue is trivial, because we will of course maintain our usual standards of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is more than a dictionary definition. If the list is a problem, it can be removed from the article. Maybe it should be - the sourcing is probably not sufficient and prose would be better than a list - but that (and the proposal to merge) can be discussed on the article's talk page. Peter E. James (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Andy Dingley. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is more than a dicdef and it is an encyclopedic subject. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:49, 19 January 2011 (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.