Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIGOT list

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. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BIGOT list

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article does not seem relevant enough to warrant its own page. It should be deleted or merged with Sensitive Compartmented Information. Its name is also close to the term, bigot, which has nothing to do with this article and can create misunderstandings. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on this page does not seem notable or relevant by itself. It may benefit from a merge and redirect to Sensitive Compartmented Information, but I see no merit in doing so because of its lack of importance. Also, the name is too close to the word, bigot, and the page could be mistaken for a list of bigots rather than an article about people with “appropriate security clearance.” 76.117.162.190 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it appears that User:76.117.162.190 appears to be an IP with a extremely limited editing history and a very strong editing overlap with the nominator, User:Brandon Nimmo. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Alansohn:, it seems that this and the deletion discussion for Ketel Marte’s 20-game post-season hitting streak are the only pages that the IP and I have both made an edit on, and it appears that we have differing opinions on that matter. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Just because I have a limited editing history, does not mean that my opinion should not be considered. Also, the similarities in opinions between me and the nominator on this particular matter hardly signifies a “very strong overlap.” 76.117.162.190 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, United Kingdom, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sensitive compartmented information. Alsp, BIGOT, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, means "having strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life".[1] The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The us of the term is documented in the article under discussion using nine separate sources including in book form from 1) the Dictionary of Jargon, 2) Spy Book: The Encyclopedia of Espionage, 3) Spycraft, 4) An Unplanned Life and 5) United States intelligence: an encyclopedia, as well as in articles in 6) National Geographic, 7) the BBC / The British Museum, 8) The Guardian and 9) Imperial War Museum. These are strong independent sources (including two encyclopedias) that document the use of the term and demonstrate that the term is genuinely notable, as is its use in multiple Wikipedia articles about subjects related to the BIGOT list and individuals included on it. A Google Books search for "BIGOT list" finds many other historical texts and works of fiction where the term is used. The proposed merge target of Sensitive compartmented information is a specific American intelligence term and is an unreasonable article in which to combine this information. Rather unremarkably "Bigot" is not the only word in the English with multiple definitions and uses, and the fact that this is a very different usage makes it relevant for inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, BIGOT, in this capacity, is functioning as an abbreviation. In addition to that, it comes from another abbreviation from the article, TOGIB (To Gibraltar), backwards. In my opinion, reversing an abbreviation pertinent to the article is not very encyclopedic and can be confusing, especially if the reversed abbreviation is also a derogatory word. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the logic here - Wikipedia is not reversing an abbreviation, but instead is explaining that the term in use (BIGOT) may have been created by historical actors reversing an abbreviation. Neither this nor the derogatory nature of "bigot" in its more common meaning are relevant to whether the article should be deleted or not. Llajwa (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, alternatively, Move to Wiktionary As a historical term, this seems to be notable, and fascinating. Merging with SCI would be a mistake, since BIGOT list seems to be primarily a British usage and SCI an American one. However, since the citations are primarily lexicographical, maybe this is better suited to Wiktionary than the encyclopedia. (The fact that "bigot" has another, much more common meaning does not seem relevant to this deletion debate one way or the other.) Llajwa (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The topic clears GNG on all counts, with considerably more RS than we normally see on short articles. It's also rather fascinating (not a policy-based argument, I'll admit, but it has to be worth something), Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this - it is interesting and more importantly it is sourced. Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 08:12, 12 November 2023 (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.