Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it an adjective, or just a noun. Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Use supports adjective over noun, but then couldn't it obviously be a noun as well? Davilla 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a noun. The article was transwikied from w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-Argentinian. Kilo-Lima 16:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

This is not in the dictionary for starters, we have Afro and Argentinian already. XGustaX 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. As Per Above. XGustaX 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The edit history seems colorful. I don't see the "rfvpassed" history at first glance, and it seems to get adequate hits to merit a full RFV not an RFD. The anthropological use of the term "Afro-Argentinian" seems to be more than sum-of-parts (which isn't a valid reason for deletion, by itself.) Move to RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved from WT:RFD. Term seems to be very rare, limited to anthropology only? --Connel MacKenzie 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There are large black populations in some Hispanic countries such as Cuba, but Argentina is possibly the whitest country in the world. They did a thorough job exterminating their native Indian populations and almost none remain. There are a small number of Asian immigrants. The number of black Argentinians is too small to count. If there are any Afro-Argentinians, they are probably the children of a few embassy officials from Nigeria or other African country that maintain a presence in Rio. —Stephen 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's as may be, but it seems the real reason for the word's rarity is the greater prevalence of the word Afro-Argentine. —RuakhTALK 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, offhand, it seems that both Afro-Argentine and Afro-Argentinian might pass RFV, so how should we mark the entries? Should it be labelled as {{fictional}} or {{hypothetical}} or {{absurd}} or {{nonsense}} or something? What criteria could we use to justify such a tag? --Connel MacKenzie 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats not the real reason why. The reason is its just not used much. I have no idea but I think Stephen G. Brown as makes a good point, maybe thats why it should be delete? XGustaX 16:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
At this point, both terms seem certain to pass RFV, so deletion is very unlikely. Identifying the term as {{rare}} while valid, would be misleading. --Connel MacKenzie 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not fictional, hypothetical, absurd, or nonsense; it's not Afro-Lapp or Afro-Ainu or something. There are blacks in Argentina, just very few; and there used to be a lot more. So, I've labeled Afro-Argentine "mostly historic", and defined Afro-Argentinian as a rare alternative form. —RuakhTALK 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone through bgc:"afro-(argentinian|argentinians)" and used all the cites except the "No Preview Available" and the "[Sorry, this page's content is restricted]". Unfortunately, that leaves only five cites, divided between the adjective and the noun senses, of which three are clearly errors. All told, we have one seemingly-non-erroneous adjective cite, one other plausibly-non-erroneous adjective cite (unless it's expected that an index use the exact same terminology as the body of the book?), and one seemingly-non-erroneous noun cite. All told, I really don't know if we should consider this acceptably cited. —RuakhTALK 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There really arent any Blacks if not very very few blacks in Argentina they were purposely killed off. No it is not, my point is that Afro-Argentian is almost as rare if not as rare as Afro-Lap or something of the sort. In fact I spoke to a friend of mine who is from Argentina, and he says Afro- what? He has never seen an African Argentine and just laughed saying there are no black people here. Now if we were speaking about Afro-Cubans this wouldnt be a subject. Anyways, besides that, I do not think we need to cite that many things on it it just seems to wikipedish for starters. I say Connel just leave it as before i guess because we cannot delete it. XGustaX 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you were comfortable discussing the term openly, but I do wish to note I've been suggesting all along that it would be kept; therefore it should be tagged appropriately. I'm still not sure what the proper tag(s) would be. Ruakh has improved it immensely, so far. And it does seem possible that this form doesn't meet WT:CFI now. This entry now has a few more weeks of being tagged RFV. In the meantime, having it properly labelled as "absurd" might give someone at the UN pause (one would hope) before they inadvertently use a politically-correct buzzword with no coherent meaning. --Connel MacKenzie 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tracked down one more citation:
  • 2005: Paul Tiyambe Zeleza, Rewriting the African diaspora: Beyond the Black Atlantic, published in the journal African Affairs, volume 104, № 414, pages 35-68
    ... not widely known that, by 1810, 30 percent of Argentina’s and Buenos Aires’s population was Afro-Argentinian, and that this was a vibrant community.
It certainly has a coherent, historical meaning. Perhaps mark (historical)? — Beobach972 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Never-mind, I see that Afro-Argentine is so marked. — Beobach972 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also went ahead and cited Afro-Argentine. — Beobach972 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • 1999: Joyce Moss, Latin American Literature and Its Times
    In the case of Afro-Argentines, as in the case of Argentina's Indians and gauchos, this tactic arguably succeeded. Although blacks constituted about 10 percent of Argentina's population in 1810, by 1887 their numbers had dropped to less than 2 percent, and have continued to drop down to the present day. ...
  • 1999: Brian Bell, Argentina, published by Insight Guides
    Argentina's greatest puzzle is the vanished Afro-Argentines. Historians throughout the years have offered diverse explanations. Ordinary citizens are ready with stories that range from the plausible to the ludicrous. ...
It seems that the adjective sense now meets our CFI. — Beobach972 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. (Sorry, XGustaX; I know how much you wished death upon this entry, though I still don't know why.) —RuakhTALK 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added usage notes to both entries. — Beobach972 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, neither of the OP's reasons of "This is not in the dictionary for starters" and "we have Afro and Argentinian already." are valid. It is in the dictionary if you mean "Wiktionary"; there is one dictionary called "the" dictionary in any case. We have Caribbean as well, but we will not be removing (or rather, we will not be refusing to add) Afro-Caribbean as a result. — Paul G 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

rfvpassed Cynewulf 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)