Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger rich (second 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. There is already a term "hood rich" in the transwiki queue, which refers in its text to "nigger rich". I've put the text from this article on the talk page for that transwiki'd article. Nandesuka 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference is to the Chapelle show and it's wrong, in that show the family's last name was "niggar" and they were white so it was "niggar rich" and not "nigger rich," which the article's title is so the Chapelle reference doesn't count. "Nigger rich" sounds like a neologism. It should get merged at the very least. Vanity article, not notable. Stronglightzeoe 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being a dicdef of a non-notable neologism. It's not even worth a merge, as I don't see any evidence that anyone actually uses the phrase (which is good, because they shouldn't). -- Kicking222 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It certainly isn't a neologism. If it's anything, it's a paleologism. It's an obsolete, obviously racist epithet for someone who squanders money on flashy status symbols while remaining poor. I've heard that it dates to the Harlem Renaissance, not the Civil War, and was one of many nigger-X compounds to come about during the early 20th century; to name a few, "nigger-flicker" (a bare blade wrapped with tape in lieu of a handle), "nigger-luck" (undeserved success), "nigger-steak" (offal), etc. As a piece of historical slang likely to be encountered in the literature of the period, it deserves to be listed on Wiktionary, but it certainly doesn't merit its own encyclopedia article. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And put in some dictionary of derogatory slang, with cites as to first usage and examples of appearance in literature.Edison 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kicking222. --Hyphen5 06:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - it belongs in Wiktionary. Yes, this is a horrible term - but it's definitely real and therefore needs to be defined. I know it's neither pleasant nor informative to read or discuss this term - but if someone needs to know what it means, they ought to be able to find it - understand it's meaning - and find the history of the term. But I don't think it's an encyclopedia entry - Wiktionary would be a better place. I would prefer that people get a fair and unbiassed definition of the term and it's roots and typical usage than to come away with the idea that it's a neologism. The Chapelle show were using a pun on the term to describe a parody of a family - that's actually confirmation that the term is real - you can't make a pun on something that's not an actual term. It passes the 'Google-test' too. It's not a neologism because we know it dates back 100 or 150 years. And it has been used in print (not least in the novel "Growing Up Nigger Rich" by Gwendoline Y. Fortune SteveBaker 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - To wiktionary. Believe it or not, in the small towns around in my area, it's still used as stated above.
• Merge into Nigger per reliable sources. Transwiki ok too. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Really, really keep. I learned something from that article (where I actually landed from a completely irrelevant Google search). And I can’t imagine a Wiktionary copy would preserve the potential richness of etymological backstory.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:46, 6 August 2006 (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.