Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 28

28 June 2006

Ben Shuldiner

This article was deleted in May after being created by a different user. The vote at the time focused on the fact that the entry was of a congressional candidate and had no importance to wiki users. However, Shuldiner is also a noted high school principal of a Brooklyn High School and a noted public figure for the hemophilia community. The entry "Benjamin Shuldiner" shows the new entry, which is neither a stub nor a campaign shill. This information is helpful to Brooklyn educators and to constituents of the 19th congressional district of New York. circlesnshadows 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Since this article has been speedied as a recreation of content previously deleted per this AfD, I've notified Mailer diablo of this DRV, though he is retired right now. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I also notified Xoloz of this DRV since he is the admin who speedy-deleted this as a recreation of previously-deleted content. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing much to add, except the obvious: if AfD has rejected a person for non-notability as a Congressional candidate, the new information that he is also a high school principal is inconsequential. Xoloz 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Xoloz and uphold deletion. Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AfD. David | Talk 10:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, valid speedy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm not seeing the added value from the new information. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Since Benjamin Shuldiner still exists, I don't see the need to undelete Ben Shuldiner. --Metropolitan90 02:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A fairly obvious case of a speedy deletion under criterion G4, I'm afraid. David | Talk 09:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And now that Benjamin Shuldiner has been deleted too, I'm changing to no vote. --Metropolitan90 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Pig

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Pig --Chungkwok 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of the derogatory term "Chinese Pig"

The administrator claims that the term needs to be "extensively" referenced, but the fact is that the term is already sufficiently referenced by credible sources. The reason for deletion is very weak and unjustified. It is indeed frustrating to note that the administrator just deletes an entire article off the cuff. Other similar articles like "Nigger" and "Coolie" are in Wikipedia, why not this one?

The article provides valuable information on a the slur. It is particularly useful for Chinese students who are racially abused and needs information about the term.

The article should be restored. Any assistance rendered would be appreciated.

(Sorry about the standard of my English because it is my second language and I am from Hong Kong.)

Henry Chung.

• Comment: I've notified Xoloz of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My explanation was given at the closing. There were webpage sources, and a single news story, but the consensus was that this did not provide sufficient basis for an article on a possibly inflammatory term. If the article's nominator here cares to lay out a compelling case, I have no objection to restoring, but given the sensitivity of the question, I felt constrained to enforce WP:V/WP:RS very strictly. I stand by the decision, subject to new evidence as always. Xoloz 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This shows that the administrator deleted the article without reading the content and verifications properly. It is not a "single" news story as claimed. There are more than three separate independent incidents of usage and each adequately verified. First, the term was directed at Hong Kong taxi driver. Second, the terms used in Taiwan and third was in the external link titled "Chinese Pig Slur used in State Assembly" shows the term was used in in another government agency in a South East Asian country. All three are separate and independent incidents in three different countries and "not just one story" as claimed. What is going on here? How can we tolerate this kind of negligence? The article must be restored immediately.--Chungkwok 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article itself was a mix of "in the news" and "what it means." Surely the term far, far predates 1987 in English, as "X + pig" is a basic denigration used for virtually every nationality, ethnicity, and religion in the world in English. Instead, the article seems to be a discussion of a news event concerning a Chinese word. As such, it's really not encyclopedic. It's an English-titled article about a word that isn't in English. There are a few WP:NOT's being violated here, including "not a dictionary," "no foreign language dictdefs," and "not a news wire." The subject and article might be appropriate at a Chinese language wikipedia, but not at .en, and I really doubt it would be encyclopedic even in China. Geogre 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, I forgot to say: endorse deletion. Geogre 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comments The term could only be traced back to 1987. Should there be evidence that the term predates 1987, then it should be edited and substantiated not deleted entirely. An article complete with introduction, history, usage and activity and credible verification is a discussion of a news event? Come on! The two Chinese characters helps some readers better understand the term which is most appropriate when it relates to a racial slur. Nowhere in Wikipedia does it says a foreign word cannot exist. It only says it should be mainly in English. There are thousands of articles with French and Spanish words, so are we going to delete all those articles? Does anyone seriously believe that a detailed article such as this can be classified as a dictionary definition? --Chungkwok 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD where the admin applied appropriate discretion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The closer articulated his/her reasoning clearly. In addition, I find that: 1) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yes, I do believe that this was a mere dictionary definition - it was an article about the word, not the thing. It included meaning, origins and usage of the term - exactly the kind of content I would expect to see in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The only difference between this and a traditional dictionary entry was that the origins and meaning were described in prose rather than in bullet form. 2) Wikipedia is not a crytsal ball. We do not cover neologisms. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwikiing the definition over to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.The article is about a "slur" not a "word" and it is does contain essential information about the slur. It is not a dictionary definition as explained. Temporary undeletion is not sufficient. Please restore the article.--Chungkwok 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Article seems to be counterproductive in trying to create a historic tradition of an ethnic slur where none exists Bwithh 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. People come to Wikipedia when they need to find info about the slur and for other knowledge. We are not advertising the term on national television. Some students are embarrassed to ask about the term. It is not easy explaining it either. Nothing is more desirable than to have an entry in Wikipedia. It is most cyclopedic. The term does exist as demonstrated in the article.--Chungkwok 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Cultural comment Regarding this anecdote from the original article Hong Kong Chinese protested vigorously when a hotel used a pig head on tour group dinner tickets to distinguish between Chinese and non-Chinese. The tickets distributed to Chinese had a pig head on it, while those for non-Chinese did not have a pig head. The Chinese complained vigoursly and the incident became international news. While the hotel management was responsible for a significant faux pas since "pig" is widely used as an (non-ethnic related) insult in Chinese, there was a certain logic to the hotel's design. Pork has historically been the national meat of China, in the same way that beef is the national meat of the USA (so I suppose the hotel should have stamped American tourist tickets with cow heads). China is the world's largest pork producer and the largest consumer of pork, producing and consuming over 50% of the world total. Pork makes up about 70% of all meat production in China. About half of the world's pig population in in mainland China (454 million pigs in 2001 compared to the second largest producer, the US at 61 million). Despite this, China still imports a large amount of pork and pork products! - 233,745 metric tons in 2000. This message has been brought to you by the People's Revolutionary No.1 Pork Producers Council. Stats from here Bwithh 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure- I did actually review this AFD pretty thoroughly, as I was considering closing it myself. I knew it would be a close call, and as I'm still pretty new to AFD closure I decided just to watch how a more experienced admin would close it for future reference. This closure was very much in line with how I was considering closing it, hence I fully endorse it. Petros471 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Why should sensitivity be an issue with a normal slur like this one? Just how much more sensitive is this term is than "Nigger"? There is no doubt that the deletion was a mistake. I recommend restoring the article forthwith.--Dragon Descendant 11:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Same Dragon Descendant suspected sockpuppet as in the original afd. Bwithh 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion sionce not only is it gratuitously offensive, it is also both blindingly obvious and generic (are we goign to have an article for every {{{nationality}}} pig?). Just zis Guy you know? 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The term is also a frequently used as an "Ethnic Slur" between Chinese people themselves in relation to ethnic and social discrimination. The Chinese from different regions are not likely to use it among themselves if the term is so gratuitously offensive and blindingly obvious. There are many known slurs for Niggers i.e. European Nigger, Snow Nigger, etc, so why not for pigs? Please read the article (about ethnic and racial usage) properly before endorsing the deletion.--Chungkwok 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - as per AFD and JzG. This term is not popular, it is not gwei lo. - Hahnchen 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The term used in public in more than three countries is popular enough. It does not have to be as popular as gwei lo to be included in Wikipedia.--Chungkwok 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)