Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grecomans

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. There is a weak consensus here that this can be more than a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grecomans

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being about the meaning and use of a word. The article has been a cause of dispute as can be seen on its talk page. An article on the people themselves would be fine (if well sourced) but not under a name that is said to be controversial and sometimes offensive.Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced. This specific term is a fact, including in scientific litarature. There are a lot of similar articles in Wiki: Serbomans, Bulgarophiles and others. Jingby (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jingiby, term is also well known in literature (try gbooks for example), and can be expanded.Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That it's a real word is irrelevant. Consider also deleting Serbomans and Bulgarophiles. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, as above! --Vinie007 08:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a glossary of racial slurs. Powers ^T 14:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jingby. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article on the term is sufficiently sourced and seems well represented in scientific literature. Along with the other articles from the group - Serbomans, Bulgarophiles etc.--Laveol ^T 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at the Bulgarian piece on that topic, you'll see that the article has potential. It can be expanded to discuss the emergence of such populations, their assimilation, the geographic range of the influence of Hellenism over the neighbouring ethnicities, etc., etc. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is notable and well-attested in the literature. Just because the article is a stub does not mean this is a case of WP:DICTIONARY. The article has strong potential for significant expansion. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The term was well established in Ottoman times, and applied in particular by non-Greek peoples (Bulgarians etc.) to describe members of their community who voluntarily sought to acquire Greek ethnicity. Apcbg (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it notable. Is there anything encyclopedic to say about this word beyond simply what it means and how it is used? Powers ^T 14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not about meaning, it's about its usage that was part of notable political, ethnic and cultural developments; I added the above explanation as this aspect seems less than clear from the present article text. Apcbg (talk) 15:25, 13 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.