Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah beng

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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah beng

just a page full of opinion, insults, and slurs 65.96.170.119 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (one of which even has a prominent "[This is] just for fun-lah! Words are taken from here, there, and everywhere." notice right at the top), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | ^Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and consider merging discussion with Ah lian Vfd debate. Zordrac 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah beng' category. Hayabusa future 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Izehar 15:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per UncleG (bsolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is this article being deleted for being "unverifable" alone, because that does seem to be the sole reasoning put up so far? Can the article not be improved on instead?--Huaiwei 13:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unverifiability is one of the reasons that we delete articles, yes. If there were reliable sources that could be used to improve the article, then it wouldn't be unverifiable. Conversely, if the article is unverifiable, then there aren't any reliable sources that can be used to improve the article and cleanup is impossible. As I said, it needs to be demonstrated that improving the article is at least possible, as it is for chav. Find reliable sources on the subject that can be used to create an article (Chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary.) and cite them, and you will change editors' minds. Uncle G 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A quick search with Google found this reference [1] (along with many others not dug into in depth) Stipulated that it is just a blog but the term seems to be a real one. Many people use this term and refer to it. Not sure how much more verifiable you want. Pete Hurd poses a rather high hurdle, is that actual Wikipedia policy or just Pete's feelings? This editor heard the term used more than once on a recent visit to Singapore, but of course that's not verifiable. If no verifiable sources exist but the preponderance of evidence suggests that the term exists and is used roughly as the article outlines shouldn't that be sufficient? I should point out that i'm inclusionist rather than deletionist, and want people to be able to find what they look for. ++Lar 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's actual Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If "no sources exist" for the verification of an article, then we cannot have an article.

    The web log posting that you cite deals with the subject in depth, but given that it's the pseudonymous author's self-proclaimed "two-sen stereotypical opinion at its height", are you truly convinced that this is a reliable source, despite what Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet says? Once again, I mention that chav was the subject of newspaper articles and a television documentary. Those are the sort of sources that you should be coming up with. If this stereotype is as widespread as you assert, there should be reliable sources on the subject. Please demonstrate that there are. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - see nomination below - Hahnchen 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Ah Lian. Mandel 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- Ah Beng is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All pages do need verifiability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If "in depth" articles on the stereotype have indeed been published in the press, as you claim, then please cite them. We aren't asking for you to write the whole article, just to provide evidence that a verifiable article can be written. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge for why the "But it's common knowledge!" argument is unacceptable. Uncle G 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying that most pages in wikipedia does not have references, that page on chav have one which is not much of a reference in my opinion, the external links for ah beng is of about as good quality as the onces for chav, i.e. neither are very good. I have seen Ah Beng mentioned many times in ST, I have heard it said many times on TV, but I can not tell you when and I can not give you reference, I did not say that any "in depth" articles have been published, I claimed that it is used in press and TV. If you really think this is a made up fake word then you can vote for delete, but the word is used, if you ask 100 people in Singapore what it means all will verify it, I can agree that the article(s) are badly written but the word is there! best use of it on the web from a reputable source Channel_News_Asia is this link, but it does not explain the meaning but maybe proves that the word is used?[2] Stefan 10:48, 8 December 2005 (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.