Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinky

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 Early close because the contents is all new. Chinky is kept as is. I will prod Chink separately. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinky and Chink

Delete Chinky is neologism, unencyclopic article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Chink to the nom, it is a disambig between two redlinks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Chink. Powers 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing there! It's a disambig between two redlinks, gonna add it to the nom now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Catamorphism 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Going back in the article's history one discovers that this is an article about a genre of takeaway restaurant found in the United Kingdom. The name is unfortunate, but that appears to be at least a common name for this genre of restaurant. And Chinese restaurant is already taken, in any case. ☺ The content at the time of nomination was unsourced original research, largely rubbish, that grew from poor beginnings. (A modicum of research reveals that the appellation "Chinky" certainly existed prior to the 1990s, for example.) Deletion is not the answer, however. Writing a verifiable article that cites sources is. I've erased the rubbish and started you off with a stub on the topic that cites sources. Keep. Uncle G 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're unbelievable! You have completely gutted the orginal article, in essense deleting yesterday's content out of process, and depriving us of the opportunity to conduct this AfD in the regular manner! I have no intention to starting an edit war with you - but I cannot leave it as is. Here's what we're going to do: I will revert your additions, and should the outcome of this AfD be "delete", I will restore your restaurant revisions and we'll proceed from there then. If you stubbornly revert my changes, I will take it to WP:AN and another sysop will have to intervene. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again, I refer you to both Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion and the article's history. Please actually look at the article's history, especially the real original version of the article (as opposed to the version at nomination, which you are erroneously calling the "original article" for some unknown reason).

      I find it somewhat strange that you are reverting to unsourced content that you yourself nominated for deletion in the first place, incidentally. Uncle G 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - in Uncle Gs form, ie in reference to British slang for Chinese reference and not some vandalised gibberish. Artw 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, nobody's challenging UG's form - for now. It will be kept at the end of this AfD regardless of the outcome. The question before us is whether we should keep the pre-UncleG form! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case Strong Delete. Artw 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that it's the same subject. The rewritten version is simply verifiable and lacking the extraneous unsourced rubbish. Uncle G 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • CrazyRussian ← rips out remaining hair... 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. There is nothing out of the ordinary in rewriting an article during an AfD discussion, and in fact, it frequently happens that a discussion that leads to delete will, after a rewrite, lead to keep. Any AfD discussion should be on the article as it stands. Spacepotato 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Quesstion Usually, if an article is revised and nobody challenges the new form, isn't the deletion nomination withdrawn? Why, if I may ask (and not because I doubt you have a good reason, only because I truly don't understand), do you want us to vote on an old edition of an article? GassyGuy 19:44, 29 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.