Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian (people) (2nd 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Asian (people)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

New request for Deletion reason: i dont see any point in having theese articles surrounding peoples races. i mean their are just to many arguments over theese. just as the black people,white and caucasians. I will vote for Deletion.--Matrix17 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are mistaking the term Asian for one that denotes a single racial or ethnic group. The header itself makes it very clear that the article is about definitions as used in English-speaking countries. —Lagalag 06:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete This article is just an excuse to tell people who is and isn't Asian and force a POV. It contains no real facts, just glorified opinions pretending to be encyclopedic Iseebias 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar articles are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slippery slope and it could lead to historical revisionism, much worse than the proposer is suggesting. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No having this article itself will lead to historical revisionism because extreme POVs on either side will selectively quote selectively chosen historians to push their POVs and since most people don't bother to read history books, they just get all their information from wikipedia, history will indeed be rewritten Iseebias 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On that basis, several articles about the nazi's warcrimes, racial hygiene, holocaust and similar should also be deleted. If they're taken out of context they could also be misused and misquoted. Just because people have heavily slanted POVs out there is one reason why articles like these should be there to inform and point to the facts in its sources. History is ugly in many cases, but deleting the accounts of them won't make them go away and the following generations won't learn from the previous one's mistakes. --Strangnet 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The rationale for deleting this article is exceedingly flawed, verging on bad faith. Just because it is a contentious subject does not mean it should be deleted. It is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I don't understand the nominator's reasoning at all, and see absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy in letter or spirit with this topic. Nomination appears to be a case of unsupported WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no reason for exclusion.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No policy-oriented reasoning at all given for deletion. Mwelch
 * Strong Keep extremely valid subject for article, and irrational nomination reason, which is basically saying, "these articles are controversial so delete them all to avoid any trouble." Wavy G 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep this is encyclopedic information which passes every Wikipedia criteria - under what criteria should it be deleted?  Eliminator JR   Talk  23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete There's no such thing as Asian people. There are mongoloid people and people who live in Asia, but there are no Asian people.  This is just another example of the anthropological illiteracy on wikipedia. Asian means different things in different countries and should not be one article Gottoupload 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, familiarize yourself with WP:CSD and other Wikipedia policies before flinging nonsensical votes around. JuJube 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The term "Asian people" is very real, and quite encyclopedic, regardless of POV constructions or whatsoever genetic issues may arise from examination. In AfDs we are to comment about the deletion or inclusion of articles, not about the issues they represent!    ◄    Zahakiel    ►   00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, what would you propose to call people from Asia, then? Orientals?  Most of my Asian friends despise that term! --Dennisthe2 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep More nonsense from Matrix17. JuJube 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep per everything above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The term Asian people is very real inside your head. Those of us who live in the real world have better things to do than worry about how far East in Asian you have to be be Asian. (Personal attacks on Wikipedians in general deleted) Please edit important subjects such as science. get rid of this trash and fast Gottoupload 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It's getting really hard to assume good faith here.  --Dennisthe2 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep; nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT --Mhking 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Okay, this is the third AFD I saw of Matrix17. As a chinese, I would prefer Asian people over mono something. And you know what, it's hard to assume Matrix17 to assume good faith. He definitely violated WP:POINT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs).
 * Speedy Keep The reasons to keep this article are obvious, and I agree that the nomination for deletion was done by a user with an agenda. Pablothegreat85 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Asian people is a neoligism which qualify for deletion.  The correct term is Oriental.  Asian makes no sense as Arabs and East Indians are also from Asia but are Caucasian not Oriental. Wikipedia is getting full of meaningless neoligisms that are promoting ignorance. Time to start removing some. I'm surprised this article lasted as long as it did. Wantednewlook 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oriental and Asian have the same age in terms of lingustic history, both refering to the same place (Read Count of Monte Cristo, which the arab girl is described as "oriental"). Personally, as a Chinese, I prefer Asian. George Leung 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Asian people" is not a neologism. And the proper term is most certainly not "Oriental."  I suspect this most likely is a joke comment (see: The Big Lebowski), and should be disregarded.  Why has this not been speedy closed per WP:SNOW? Wavy G 06:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept does exist, though defined differently in different countries. —Lagalag 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.