Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Pig


 * 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 of the debate was Delete Racial slurs may constitute encyclopedic topics; however, because of their sensitivity, they must be extensively referenced by verifiable sources before they can be included in the encyclopedia. There is a consensus here that this article does not meet that requirement. I will not merge and redirect to "list of ethnic slurs," but I will be happy to help any interested editor do so, if he or she comes forward with adequate reliable sourcing. Xoloz 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Pig
Delete. The prod was removed by article's creator, so it's being sent here. The article is a borderline dictionary definition about a Chinese slang term, and much of the article is in Chinese or barely salvagable English. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė   ♫   ♪  19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I might change my vote if somebody does a much better job of translation.  I wonder what the author thinks the word "alights" means.  -Danielrocks123 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe he thinks the word means "1. To come down and settle, as after flight: a sparrow alighting on a branch. 2. To set down, as from a vehicle; dismount: The queen alighted from the carriage. 3. To come by chance: alight on a happy solution." [www.bartleby.com] Inter lingua  talk 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The tags appear to be inserted simultaneously by the same person using multiple user names.The earlier tags and the current deletion tag was inserted simply because the article is not to the liking of the individual concerned. An unencyclopedic tag was inserted followed by a deletion tags listing invalid, absurd and irrelevant reasons. The article is most appropriate for Wikipedia as it is serving the important purpose of providing information on a racial slur, which is gaining prominence. The article is far from being a dictionary definition. The editor goes on to criticize the English of the author. The article was written in simple English in line with Wikipedia policy. One does not have to be Shakespeare or an English Professor to contribute to Wikipedia. The article should be allowed to remain intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chungkwok (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom StuartF 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-English dic-def. Eluchil404 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The article conforms with the rules and contents policies of Wikipedia. There is no valid reason for insertion of the deletion tag or request for deletion. The claim of barely salvagable English is nonsense. The article provides valuable verified information on a derogatory term. Other Wikipedians are likely to supplement additional information. The article should be kept and protected. --Chungkwok 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of ethnic slurs. Tony Fox (speak) 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There are no grounds for merging the article into the List of ethnic slurs due the fact that this is an explanation of the slur with possibilities of expansion of the content. The article should be kept intact. --Chungkwok 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have stricken your keep vote because you already voted in this discussion. --Danielrocks123 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at List of ethnic slurs it contains a number of such words or phrases that have been explained within the list itself. Most of them don't appear to have a standalone article. Tony Fox (speak) 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The List of ethnic slurs is only a "list" and whenever detailed information and explanations are needed, as in this case, a standalone article is appropriate. --Chungkwok 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The rewritten version of this article has much more coherent English, but has a strong POV problem.  --Danielrocks123 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is based on facts supported by actual reports and information from reliable sources. It contains necessary information and facts about a current derogatory term. The POV claim is groundless. I note with regret that the connected article in the list of ethnic slurs was deleted repeatedly by vandals. Please be constructive. The article is valuable reference material for Wikipedia. --Chungkwok 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Number of problems - (a) no evidence that the term is in actual common use. For example, the url refers to just another racist comment. The emphasis of all the articles is not on the term in particular, but on the discrimination towards mainland chinese in general. Hence, it is far more appropiate to have an article discussing say, Taiwanese-Mainline antipathy, with this as a possible redirect, than focus on a single obscure term which has no verifiable origin and so on. (b) If the term is to be noted at all, it belongs in List of Ethnic Slurs. It doesn't deserve an article of its own, because it's just a dictionary def. (c) Assume good faith. List of Ethnic Slurs has a detailed verifiability criteria that needs to be satisfied, to stop people from putting in any old phrase. Further, do not use the vandal template in the middle of an article! It's meant to be used for userpages. (d) The article in question does have a POV problem. As an encyclopedia, we should be stating matters of fact. We should not be imploring our readers to be nice to each other and not be racists. Wikipedia is not a self-help guide.--Fangz 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. (A) Common use of the item is evidenced by authoritative newspaper reports and they do indicate that the term is being used openly in public. Common use of the term is evident. The term being discussed in the legislative assembly (equivalent to the US Congress) is more than sufficient evidence that term is gaining prominence and continued use of the term is expected, otherwise it would be treated as an isolated case. The article focus finely on the term itself and explanations related to the term only. There is no emphasis on racial discrimination. Origin of the term is not important considering that the purpose of this article is solely to provide encyclopedic information on a racist term. (B) The list of ethnic slurs is a list and not intended for extensive information. If all articles of this length were "listed", then the list would be too lengthy to serve any useful purpose, especially as an online encyclopedia. It is hard to see how a detailed article such as this can be considered as a dictionary definition. Coolie and the "N" word all have articles of their own so why would this term not deserve a page of its own? (C) Verifiability has been satisfied as stated above. Sorry about the vandal template. (D) Something that has happened in public and reported in newspapers is a "fact". There is no intention is not to guide anyone on anything. The sole intention is merely to provide encyclopedic information on a racial slur. --Chungkwok 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominator Comment. Verifiability has hardly been met in reference to the article. The sources mentioned in the article do nothing more than use the phrase "Chinese pig" in terms of the differences between Taiwan and mainland China.  If you are trying to provide a definition for Chinese pig, then you are doing nothing more than providing a dictionary definition, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia.  The articles asserts no importance or notability for this phrase.  The one isolated incident of the Canadian teacher is not notable enough to support the need for the Chinese pig article.  The article itself is strongly POV, and it does nothing but use an ethnic slur to further the differences between Taiwanese and Chinese people.  I am not even sure if this article qualifies to be merged with the lackluster list of ethnic slurs.  The first sentence of the article even humorously states "Chinese pig is an racially offensive term," yet one of the sources even mentions how the term Chinese pig denotes social and not racial discrimination.  And, if the difference is of nationalities, then it certainly is not dealing with racism.  Coolie and nigger are amongst the most widespread derogatory terms in existance.  Their articles can expand a lot further than a mere dictionary definition, to which Chinese pig cannot.  — №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪
 * Strong Keep. What is important is whether the term "Chinese Pig" exists, has been actually used as a racist term in daily life, has racial slur significance and can be substantiated or verified. All these requirements have been met. Evidence of public usage of the racist term alone is sufficient to qualify it as a racial slur. The existence of the term has been demonstrated and verified by credible newspapers reports of an incident involving two unrelated individuals of different races exchanging racial slurs in public. Public transport can be taken as a miniature of society culture and usage of racial slurs on public transport indicates common usage. Use of the term in public by ordinary folks has been established. The victim was upset at the use of term to demean him racially. If a white person calling a Chinese person a "Chinese pig" is not racially injurious or discriminatory, then what is it? The Taiwan link shows that the term is also used there. Justification for inclusion of a racial slur in Wikipedia is not by the number of times the term has been used or its rank in popularity. It is not necessary to demonstrate the number of times it has been used or how common the term is. The term when used by Chinese to Chinese is ethnic or social discrimination because of the many different ethnicities among Chinese. A foreigner to Chinese is racial discrimination which is the case here. The core of the matter is whether the term exists and whether it can be verified. How can we say that the article cannot be expanded like the one for Coolie? Are we going to eliminate everyone using the term hereafter so that the term will never be used again? The arguments supporting deletion seen so far are weak and unreasonable. A black person being called a Nigger could go to Wikipedia to locate detailed information about the term and a Chinese person being called a “Chinese Pig” could do the same. Why should there be a difference? I strongly recommend keeping this article.--Dragon Descendant 03:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet suspicion. Let it be known that the above comment by Dragon Descendant is that users only Wikipedia contribution; therefore, the above vote will be dismissed. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė   ♫   ♪
 * Comment. The comments by Dragon Descedant is the best argument so far. Keep the article.--Chungkwok 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are pathetic; give it a rest. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė   ♫   ♪


 * Comment. Pathetic? Sorry if I have offended anyone, but all I am trying to do is to allow those who have been racially abused to access Wilkipedia to obtain detailed information about the slur. We would not have to go through this if the deletion proposal was not inserted. So far we have not seen any valid justification for deletion. The article should be kept. --Chungkwok 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to inform you, since you apparently haven't read the above comments, that there are many justifications for removal of this article; and, so far, you are the only person who's arguing in favor of keeping this article. I commend you for your effort to try to save your article, and I mean you no disrespect; however, I'm doing nothing more than trying to uphold Wikipedia standards for articles, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  I'm sorry to inform you, but the article (and your use of a newly created username to argue your point) is unacceptable. — №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪


 * Comment. All comments have been read carefully and responded to point by point. No one needs to "save" this article because it has the legitimate right to exist since it meets all the criteria of Wikipedia. I have not and do not need to use another user name to argue anything. We do not need a lot of people to argue for inclusion or deletion but we do need convincing and valid arguments. The simple fact is that there is nothing to argue about therefore no one bothers. You have stated that there are "many" justifications for removal of this article, but failed to point out which ones. Please avoid such empty talk and messing up the civil and orderly manner in which this is progressing. Kindly concentrate on material facts and avoid wasting time and resources of those concerned. Anyone can see that you are not interested in constructive discussion, therefore please excuse us. Again, we have yet to see any valid and convincing argument for deletion. The article should be kept.--Chungkwok 13:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of ethnic slurs as per Tony Fox. I can't see that there is anything special about this particular insult which requires an article.  The recent incident appears to be an argument a guy got into with a taxi driver which resulted in his arrest. People are sometimes abusive and subject to consequent legal action. It may make the local papers, but I'm not sure that it is notable anyway. Inner Earth 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. All these wriggling and wrangling is indeed perplexing. The pointless and tiresome efforts of some individuals trying to force or wrestle the article out are amazing. Nobody has yet come up with anything convincing. All we are hearing are just empty excuses and repetition of points, which have been satisfactorily addressed. Could anyone come up with just one valid and convincing reason for deletion of the article please? It is just not good enough to say that if we cannot get rid of this article then just merge it into list of slurs.

In the absence of valid arguments, I suppose I would have to assume that and the reasons behind all these objections could lie in the embarrassment of having an article about this derogatory term in Wikipedia and the worry of the undesirable effects of mentioning the term. Could it be that some of these objections are to be from  individuals exercising blind patriotism and raising objections about the article?

I suppose I would have address the concern of these individuals who might be uncomforatable with the derogatory term. People voluntarily come to Wikipedia to seek information about the term. That is what an online encyclopedia is for. I have to state the term is not being broadcasted to people on national TV new s or carried in newspapers or any other mass media. If "nigger", "coolie" and "Eurotrash" can have their own articles and people do not mind it, then why should we resist this article?

The term is not only in local newspapers. On the contrary, the term is being used everywhere from Hong Kong multi-cultural society to worldwide high governmental institutions including the respected state legislature of a major South East Asia country. Please see the external links in the article titled "Chinese pig slur used in state legislature". If that is not notable, then what is?

Considering that there appears to be no valid or constructive comments, it is time to end this debate. The article should be kept intact.--Chungkwok 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Please note that comments have been moved to the bottom of the page so that votes can more easily be seen. Please still read the comments of other editors before voting, as in Articles for deletion ''' Inner Earth

'Note: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. The discussion itself is more important than the statistics as stated in Wikipedia Guidlines: Consensus. Above appears to be an attempt by Inner Earth to force emphasis on the number of votes. It should be noted that the some votes are cast close to each other and that it is highly likely to be be originating from the same user using multiple names. --Chungkwok 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)'


 * I apologise for moving the freestanding comments to the bottom of the page - I have since been shown the guideline I had missed. I have reverted myself and then added the only substquent comment to the bottom of the page. I hope everyone is happy with that action. (bit of a rookie mistke there...) Inner Earth 16:21, 27 June 2006 (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.