635:- 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.
741:
444:- Unless I am incorrect here, if I recall correctly, even if a topic is noteworthy, if the article is sheer junk, Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) for 5 years certainly seems unacceptable.
745:
675:
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.
674:
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
653:
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
311:
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
503:
rather than out of spite for my defeating you in your attempt to keep three separate articles on a single topic on
Knowledge (XXG) because of your devotion to your hometown. I find you of all the tons of Knowledge (XXG) editors out there showing up here to oppose me extremely suspect.
861:: "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."
518:
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:
189:
334:
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.
87:
82:
672:
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: "
797:. 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.--
855:
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.)
717:
794:
786:
778:
697:
142:
782:
623:
183:
149:
493:
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
77:
312:
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. -
374:, 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?
619:
877:
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.
358:
291:
853:
It's been tagged for a half a decade. Way too long for a junk article to remain on
Knowledge (XXG). Also, from the page you asked me to review: "
814:
593:
per BillyTFried, without prejudice to any future article (unless a recreation or near recreation_. I see one referenced statement, that
17:
757:
115:
110:
921:
888:
870:
848:
830:
806:
729:
709:
686:
667:
644:
627:
610:
585:
558:
544:
513:
486:
453:
430:
383:
365:
329:
298:
254:
60:
119:
204:
740:; 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
350:
283:
171:
102:
940:
40:
844:
826:
802:
605:
165:
336:
269:
858:
836:
500:
466:
308:
221:
840:
822:
798:
936:
884:
866:
682:
663:
640:
581:
554:
509:
449:
379:
250:
161:
36:
602:
540:
482:
426:
325:
211:
197:
901:
658:
between "Got Rice?" and Asian pride), but I'd rather preserve it on the off-chance that there is.
857:" And it has been stated from the beginning that it is a noteable topic but as noted above from
655:
917:
725:
705:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
935:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
229:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
880:
862:
678:
659:
636:
577:
550:
505:
445:
375:
261:
246:
106:
905:
753:
244:. Bascialy the same reasons it's been nominated by others twice before in the past 5 years.
233:
241:
225:
177:
761:
528:
470:
414:
371:
313:
237:
790:
913:
721:
701:
54:
136:
576:
and improve. I don't think the article's so far gone that it needs to be nuked.
98:
66:
769:
756:
we can see the subject is covered under the chapter "Got Rice?" in the book
765:
879:" Tying Asian Pride to Gang Violence clearly falls under that category.
774:
929:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
758:
Encyclopedia of Asian
American Folklore and Folklife, Volume 1
413:#4: Please review the reasons for deletion I've linked to. -
601:
have something to do with gangs. The rest is an OR essay.
499:" I sure hope you just coincidentally showed up here in
469:. I do not see a match for what you think you recall. -
265:
132:
128:
124:
196:
549:
Almost as far fetched as it being pure coincidence.
407:
assume good faith. (I said "please" and everything.)
875:
From that same page I also just noticed this one: "
718:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
210:
698:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
266:tried to nominate the article for deletion earlier
88:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (3rd nomination)
83:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
943:). No further edits should be made to this page.
900:- I don't think it's not notable, as shown by
906:so bad it needs to be blown up and re-created
813:Additionally, from the previous AfD, here is
527:more reasonable conclusion than any other. -
8:
789:). Moreover, it is also used outside of the
716:Note: This debate has been included in the
696:Note: This debate has been included in the
495:or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD
715:
695:
654:there (although there does appear to be a
677:" And even that still isn't sufficient.
465:- Reasons for deletion can be found at
618:per BillyTFried and KillerChihuahua. —
75:
821:thus showing the subject is notable.--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
260:I am listing this here on behalf of
73:
24:
902:the many available online sources
78:Articles for deletion/Asian pride
777:as well as discussed elsewhere (
748:mentions in books. Now to meet
760:, the term is used to counter
1:
922:17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
889:07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
871:06:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
849:01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
831:01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
817:, where the subject is given
807:01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
730:21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
710:21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
687:21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
668:21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
645:20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
628:17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
611:11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
586:08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
559:07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
545:06:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
514:06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
487:06:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
454:06:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
431:06:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
384:06:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
366:03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
330:03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
299:03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
255:16:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
224:: Article is almost entirely
61:19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
521:Remember ME?!?!?! NOW DIE!!!
960:
762:Asian American stereotypes
597:counselors think the term
738:Strong Keep & Improve
932:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
72:AfDs for this article:
234:NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
910:incubate this orphan
819:significant coverage
750:significant coverage
620:Nearly Headless Nick
370:Ah, my old friend,
309:reason for deletion
268:, without success.
744:, as well as over
410:#3: There is no #3
240:and does not have
48:The result was
841:RightCowLeftCoast
823:RightCowLeftCoast
799:RightCowLeftCoast
732:
712:
399:
364:
297:
226:ORIGINAL RESEARCH
951:
934:
835:Also please see
793:, with usage in
771:Asian Pride Porn
742:700k google hits
608:
537:
534:
531:
491:From that page "
479:
476:
473:
423:
420:
417:
397:
361:
355:
348:
345:
340:
322:
319:
316:
294:
288:
281:
278:
273:
242:RELIABLE SOURCES
215:
214:
200:
152:
140:
122:
57:
34:
959:
958:
954:
953:
952:
950:
949:
948:
947:
941:deletion review
930:
606:
535:
532:
529:
477:
474:
471:
421:
418:
415:
359:
351:
341:
338:
320:
317:
314:
292:
284:
274:
271:
157:
148:
113:
97:
94:
92:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
957:
955:
946:
945:
925:
924:
894:
893:
892:
891:
873:
833:
810:
809:
734:
733:
713:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
648:
647:
630:
613:
588:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
457:
456:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
411:
408:
401:
389:
388:
387:
386:
372:User:SummerPhD
368:
307:- There is no
258:
228:that violates
218:
217:
154:
93:
91:
90:
85:
80:
74:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
956:
944:
942:
938:
933:
927:
926:
923:
919:
915:
911:
908:. At worse,
907:
903:
899:
896:
895:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:WP:DEL-REASON
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:WP:NOTCLEANUP
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:United States
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
694:
688:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
612:
609:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:WP:Good faith
498:
496:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
468:
467:WP:DEL-REASON
464:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
432:
428:
424:
412:
409:
406:
402:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
367:
362:
356:
354:
347:
346:
344:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
310:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
295:
289:
287:
280:
279:
277:
267:
263:
257:
256:
252:
248:
245:
243:
239:
238:VERIFIABILITY
235:
231:
227:
223:
213:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
163:
160:
159:Find sources:
155:
151:
147:
144:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
117:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
95:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
931:
928:
909:
904:; nor is it
897:
876:
854:
818:
770:
749:
737:
673:
656:tenuous link
632:
615:
598:
594:
590:
573:
524:
520:
494:
492:
462:
441:
404:
396:#1: I'm not
352:
342:
337:
304:
285:
275:
270:
259:
220:
219:
207:
201:
193:
186:
180:
174:
168:
158:
145:
53:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
881:BillyTFried
863:BillyTFried
679:BillyTFried
660:DoctorKubla
637:BillyTFried
578:DoctorKubla
551:BillyTFried
506:BillyTFried
446:BillyTFried
376:BillyTFried
262:BillyTFried
247:BillyTFried
236:as well as
184:free images
99:Asian pride
67:Asian pride
232:, lacks a
937:talk page
795:Australia
607:Chihuahua
343:Strikeout
339:Automatic
276:Strikeout
272:Automatic
37:talk page
939:or in a
766:Greg Pak
264:who had
143:View log
39:or in a
914:Bearian
815:a paper
722:Frankie
702:Frankie
633:Comment
463:Comment
230:WP:SOAP
190:WP refs
178:scholar
116:protect
111:history
56:MBisanz
754:WP:GNG
616:Delete
603:Killer
591:Delete
442:Delete
405:Please
222:REASON
162:Google
120:delete
599:might
205:JSTOR
166:books
150:Stats
137:views
129:watch
125:links
16:<
918:talk
898:Keep
885:talk
867:talk
845:talk
827:talk
803:talk
752:per
726:talk
720:. —
706:talk
700:. —
683:talk
664:talk
641:talk
595:some
582:talk
574:Keep
555:talk
541:talk
523:" A
510:talk
483:talk
450:talk
427:talk
403:#2:
400:old.
398:that
380:talk
326:talk
305:Keep
251:talk
198:FENS
172:news
133:logs
107:talk
103:edit
839:.--
768:'s
764:in
536:PhD
533:mer
530:Sum
525:far
478:PhD
475:mer
472:Sum
422:PhD
419:mer
416:Sum
321:PhD
318:mer
315:Sum
212:TWL
141:– (
920:)
912:.
887:)
869:)
847:)
829:)
805:)
785:,
781:,
746:1k
728:)
708:)
685:)
666:)
643:)
626:}
584:)
557:)
543:)
512:)
485:)
452:)
429:)
382:)
357:•
328:)
290:•
253:)
192:)
135:|
131:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
52:.
916:(
883:(
865:(
843:(
825:(
801:(
787:3
783:2
779:1
775:,
724:(
704:(
681:(
662:(
639:(
624:c
622:{
580:(
553:(
539:(
519:"
508:(
497:.
481:(
448:(
425:(
378:(
363:)
360:C
353:T
349:(
324:(
296:)
293:C
286:T
282:(
249:(
216:)
208:·
202:·
194:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
164:(
156:(
153:)
146:·
139:)
101:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.