Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (3rd 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian pride

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

REASON: Article is almost entirely ORIGINAL RESEARCH that violates WP:SOAP, lacks a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW as well as VERIFIABILITY and does not have RELIABLE SOURCES. Bascialy the same reasons it's been nominated by others twice before in the past 5 years. BillyTFried (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this here on behalf of BillyTFried who had tried to nominate the article for deletion earlier, without success. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason for deletion given here. Automatic Strikeout's reason is, essentially, because BillyTFried tried to delete. BillyTFried's reason (as linked) is: "There should certainly be an article on the topc of Asian Pride, but this page of rubbish is certainly not it and needs to be completely re-written." Basically, that says that this is a notable topic, but the article is in need of a lot of work. That's a great reason to work on the article, but not a reason to delete it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was not taking a position in favor of or in opposition to deletion. I was simply listing the AfD on behalf of another editor who apparently wasn't sure what the (confusing) procedure was. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my old friend, User:SummerPhD, who it should be noted I had a major quarrel with in the past where she failed to block a merge I proposed. So, keep? Did you even look at the article? BillyTFried (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#1: I'm not that old.

#2: Please assume good faith. (I said "please" and everything.)

#3: There is no #3

#4: Please review the reasons for deletion I've linked to. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I am incorrect here, if I recall correctly, even if a topic is noteworthy, if the article is sheer junk, Wikipedia standards dictate that it should be deleted anyway until someone writes an acceptable version. It turns out that this is the 3rd time this article has been nominated for deletion (which caused my confusion), once in 2007 and again in 2008 with no consensus, and still remains horribly below the minimum standards of an Encyclopedia entry. Having such an article remain on Wikipedia for 5 years certainly seems unacceptable. BillyTFried (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reasons for deletion can be found at WP:DEL-REASON. I do not see a match for what you think you recall. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that page "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." I sure hope you just coincidentally showed up here in WP:Good faith rather than out of spite for my defeating you in your attempt to keep three separate articles on a single topic on Wikipedia because of your devotion to your hometown. I find you of all the tons of Wikipedia editors out there showing up here to oppose me extremely suspect. BillyTFried (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been biding my time, watching your every move, waiting to strike for four years. Then, when another editor started an AfD on your behalf, I leaped out of the shadows, with my sharpened claws and screamed: "Remember ME?!?!?! NOW DIE!!!" A far more reasonable conclusion than any other. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as far fetched as it being pure coincidence. BillyTFried (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I don't think the article's so far gone that it needs to be nuked. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillyTFried, without prejudice to any future article (unless a recreation or near recreation_. I see one referenced statement, that some counselors think the term might have something to do with gangs. The rest is an OR essay. Killer Chihuahua 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillyTFried and KillerChihuahua. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could the people voting for "Keep" please cite which portions of the article they believe should be kept and are actually encyclopedic, properly referenced, and does not fall under the reasons for deletion listed above? From reading the page it seems to me that only the very first line would have any chance of standing up under any sort of scrutiny, though it still lacks any references. I would think all the other content below that about "AZN Pryde" lingo, "Got Rice" rap songs, Asian American middle schoolers, nationalism, and gang activity and violence obviously wouldn't make the cut. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I take the view that if a subject is notable, which we agree this subject is, any problems with the article should be solved through ordinary editing; in this case, reducing the article to a stub if need be, but leaving the history intact. I've no idea if there's anything salvageable in there (although there does appear to be a tenuous link between "Got Rice?" and Asian pride), but I'd rather preserve it on the off-chance that there is. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that even the first line is really not sufficient as it is only referring to the American use of this very broad term. When I looked at the previous AFD I noticed this comment: "editors are conflating at least three distinct things: Asian pride — the rejection of U.S. and European influence by Asian countries, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia in a 1994 National Geographic for example, Asian Pride — a part of the EPIC programme run by the University of California at Los, Angeles in the mid-1970s, that evolved into Multicultural Pride and that still influences UCLA and its environs today, Asian pride — a group pride political movement amongst Asian Americans that has existed since the 1960s, as discussed here by the Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, for example." And even that still isn't sufficient. BillyTFried (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep & Improve; the primary purpose of an AfD is to see whether the subject is notable. If we do a google search we can find more than 700k google hits, as well as over 1k mentions in books. Now to meet significant coverage per WP:GNG we can see the subject is covered under the chapter "Got Rice?" in the book Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife, Volume 1, the term is used to counter Asian American stereotypes in Greg Pak's Asian Pride Porn, as well as discussed elsewhere (1, 2, 3). Moreover, it is also used outside of the United States, with usage in Australia. Granted the article is in VAST need of improvement. However, that does not mean that it is not notable, and thus should be deleted. Rather it means, it should be tagged, and improved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from the previous AfD, here is a paper, where the subject is given significant coverage thus showing the subject is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged for a half a decade. Way too long for a junk article to remain on Wikipedia. Also, from the page you asked me to review: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)" And it has been stated from the beginning that it is a noteable topic but as noted above from WP:DEL-REASON: "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." BillyTFried (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that same page I also just noticed this one: "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." Tying Asian Pride to Gang Violence clearly falls under that category. BillyTFried (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's not notable, as shown by the many available online sources; nor is it so bad it needs to be blown up and re-created. At worse, incubate this orphan. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (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.