Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnoburb (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 No consensus. No one, besides the Nom, had any major reason for this article to be deleted, but there was much discussion. The article will be Kept. Further discussion on the articles Name, or content can be made on the talk page -- (non-admin closure). Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnoburb
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Neologism that has not gained any prominent usage and was transwikied to Wiktionary on the last AFD. For whatever reason, it was silently recreated a year later. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually it was deleted way back in 2006, and I recreated it in 2007. I was not aware that it had previously been deleted and transwikied.  But I disagree with deletion.  The term may not be colloquial, but it is academic, and thus not neologism.  It has been used in plenty of academic studies and books.  Here are search results for the term on Google Scholar and Google Books.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly exists as a term, but it has not gained any large acceptance in the academic community; therefore it is a neologism. In addition, the article is little more than a dictionary definition that should belong on Wiktionary. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is not very big does not warrant deletion - it warrants expansion. As your assertion that it has not gained acceptance in the academic community, once again I point you to the Google Books and Google Scholar search results which I linked already.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That adds up to what, a few thousand books and papers, much of which is written by the same people? I don't consider that as any wide acceptance of the term. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable and so should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is a neologism ever notable? "Ethnoburb" gets 5000 Google results, all of which relate to a certain Li Wei. Also please avoid strawman arguments; I am not talking about the topic (much as it is a completely unresearched field and consists of WP:OR on Wikipedia), but the article being a dictionary definition for a neologism. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I know this one: a neologism is notable when it has coverage satisfying the WP:GNG. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider renaming -- The term has some academic use, although often framed by also mentioning the term "ethnic suburb." Editors can discuss whether the newer term is more appropriate for the title, but the subject to which they both refer is notable.--Carwil (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see, now. If I link the usual human geography nomenclature, how much will be red? ethnic enclave ethnic enclave economy enthnic suburb. Hmmm. Counting Google hits is not research, and your argument to that effect is entirely founded on sand, HongQiGong.  But so, too, is yours, Grayshi.  This concept has escaped its originator and been acknowledged by others.  See ISBN 9781592138586 pp. 81, ISBN 9781405132190 pp. 392, and ISBN 9780742537729 pp. 10 for some of many examples.  And if you want to see a lengthy summary of even lengthier research on this "unresearched" topic see ISBN 9781586842642 pp. 281.  Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't count Google hits. Nowhere have I mentioned the number of hits the topic returns in Google Books or Google Scholar in order to justify a "keep" on the article.  I provided the links to their search results so that editors - like yourself (thanks) - can see the academic works that use or reference the term.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Look at these search results!" is in essence the same argument, and it has several fundamental flaws, not the least of which is that what you see in a Google Books search isn't what everyone else will see. One really does have to cite the actual books.  Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically noting a Google search result count is entirely a different beast because it assumes some arbitrary number of G-hits will qualify a subject for notability. If anything, I was simply guilty of being lazy by only providing links to the academic works.  Like for example, how you provided the ISBNs instead of book titles and author names.  Let me be the devil's advocate here, what does it matter if the term is mentioned on page 81 of some random book whose title we don't even know?  Why do we care?  You mean I'd actually have to go search out the book itself based on the ISBN you gave??  Well you know that's basically what I assumed other editors would do when I provided the links to the Google Books and Google Scholars search results - which I am almost certain you did since those books all appear on the first few pages of the Google Books result I provided.  I assure you, my intent was never to place any importance on a Google search result count.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll write what I wrote again, in boldface this time, because it obviously isn't sinking in: What you see in a Google Books search isn't what everyone else will see. You did not provide a Google Books "result".  You provided a search that people could perform, and what everyone else sees as the result of that search won't necessarily be what you see yourself.  Learn this about Google Books, and about search engines in general.  It will save you a lot of grief.  And yes, you're expected to use the ISBN and the exact page number to find the precise thing that I'm pointing you to.  Thanks to Project:Booksources that isn't particularly hard; and you've even got your choice of a wide range of mechanisms for locating the book.  It's a lot easier than when one has nothing but a vague wave in the direction of a search URL, on just one book source, that may not even show people what was being vaguely waved in the direction of. I can tell from what you write that you haven't actually yet read the pages cited, by the way. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I did provide a Google Books search result.  If it differs from what other people may see, that's only because Google's spiders have updated its cache, but it still returns a listing of books that editors can easily browse through for themselves, which is the point of why I provided those links.  And when I provide those search result links, I expect other editors to look through the relevant entries to see that they support my argument, much like how you expect others to go the extra step to search for these books and page numbers and make the judgement call for ourselves whether or not they support your argument.  And please, enlighten me on how you know I haven't yet read the pages you cited.  Because I actually have Min Zhou's book.  Do you know what a devil's advocate is?  Look it up.  It'll save you a lot of ridicule.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again: You provided a search to perform.  You provided no results at all.  (You still haven't, as a matter of fact.)  Nor are you being a devil's advocate.  Nothing in what you are doing is devil's advocacy.  Rather, you have before you quite clear explanations that you didn't do what you claimed to do, and that what you did do was wholly uninformative and of zero help to the discussion, and not based upon a correct understanding of how Google Books works or what you are in fact doing when you hand someone a URL for a search engine search.  Your comparison of handing someone a URL for a search to perform on a search engine and telling someone the number of and exact page to look at in a book is both specious and rather foolish, considering the vast and blatantly obvious differences between the two.  I've already told you once how I know that you haven't read the pages mentioned, by the way.  (Why does everything need to be repeated several times for you?)  It's because of your erroneous descriptions thereof written above.  After all, I have read those pages. Moreover, when someone tells you that finding out how Google Books works will save you a lot of grief, the correct response is not the sort of "It will save you" echo back that one would get from a ten year old in a playground.  No, before you say it, that's not being a devil's advocate either.  It's just being silly.  Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. This probably needs more eyes, as it doesn't appear that the previous AfD result has been contradicted (per Uncle G).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. More than enough coverage specifically of the term and its history and context to meet WP:GNG requirements. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NEO does not apply if the article is backed up by reliable sources. For example, Bushism is a recently coined term, but since there are reliable sources to verify that the term is notable, WP:NEO does not apply. WP:DICDEF is a much more convincing argument, but this article is long enough that WP:DICDEF doesn't apply either.--hkr Laozi speak  04:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ethnic enclave. It is clear that this term has some use, but from skimming the abstracts of several articles, and from the current content of this page, it is not clear that this is really a separate topic. Cnilep (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Strongly Keep Neologism Is part and parcel of the evolution of language. "Ethnoburb" is gaining wider acceptance and usage, as this phenomenon grows exponentially  with, in particular, the burgeoning Asian population.  i.e. " Blog" would have more than likely been rejected as a neologism a few years ago. See: [] DocOfSoc (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note In a very short time, Grayshi has nominated and succesfully deleted Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States, nominated this article, and is a strong supporter for the deletion of Southern California Chinatowns. There is a pattern here and I don't understand his agenda. He has nominated or participated in the deletion of 6 other articles in the past few months.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What you've amounted to saying here is "I like the article" and completely disregarding WP:NEO. The other AfDs are irrelevant to this discussion and I am considering opening an WP:ANI report regarding your behavior. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will quote this from WP:NEO, which this article is flying in the face against:
 * There's a whole book on the word and concept: Ethnoburb: the new ethnic community in urban America.    Will Beback    talk    06:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Language is in constant evolution: i:e:  texting and sexting as verbs are new additions and who could imagine, 12 years ago the massive usage  of "google," as we use it today. "Scuba" and "laser" are older examples. Ethnoburb is a new word or neologism that has been well sourced recently, spreading from academia to more common usage our living language as did prothemics. "Blog" so blithely used above and throughout Wikipedia, was unheard of just a few years ago.  English, unlike Latin, is not a dead language  and is not limited as such.  "Bitchin' is still alive and well in some cultures, because it is so very "cool" ;-)  DocOfSoc (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't create an article on a subject before it becomes popular, and you don't know if it even will. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept"
 * Comment Article created: 2007, Five books on Amazon mentioning "Ethnoburbs", the first dating from 2004. Exactly how long does it take for you to accept a word?00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How long does it take you to accept WP:NEO? …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34526440_ITM
 * http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/5/1/5/p105155_index.html
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_2_35/ai_n31914797/
 * http://design.walkerart.org/worldsaway/Terms/Ethnoburb
 * DocOfSoc (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2010 (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.