Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Asian Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angry Asian Man
Non-notable topic; no legitimate sources support the article, sources are made up by personal websites and blogs, violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#BLOG. Chris! my talk 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I also nominate this redirect for deletion.Chris! my talk 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of slang or neologisms. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It appears to be quite a well known sterotype, including a article about the blog at the Washington Post, see the links. It turned up over two million ghits, I know I know, WP:GHITS, however I say it should be kept, but sourced more so. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NOT#BLOG. The article simply violates too many policies. Chris! my talk 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete = WP:NEO says it all. --Markdsgraham 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't about a stereotype of angry Asian men -- it's about one Asian man, angry about stereotypes, and attempts to WP:COATRACK, or something, their self-chosen labels into a stereotype of its own. None of the sources really supports this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete this is also in violation of the no advertising category, it does not meet notability standards, NPOV and violates pretty much everyother basic principles of WP, i agree with every other delete comment and why, grossly violates the no OR rule.CholgatalK! 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'Keep' I think this should be kept. Angry Asian Man is pretty well known webpage and specially asian people know about it. This article is well developed though. Keep it or otherwise someone is going to create it again, so this point is moot. 75.166.55.118 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- comment well known to whom? it doubt it has significant enough traffic to merritt an article. It has to be proven its well known, have any sources? I could write a well developed article on my blog too, it would also and should also be deleted, because its not notable enough. Articles which are deleted are always easily and quickly redleted again and again, so that is not a problem. This has happened before and theres ways of dealing with it. In fact if it is recreated too often, it can be disabled from recreation entirely. I think its a subltle threat from you over recreation of the article. The burden of proof lies with anyone which wants to save this article. I suggest the creator of that blog try to attract more readers if he wants an article on wikipedia or that he begin a wikia project or find some other encyclopedia to become a part of.CholgatalK! 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, borders on WP:ATTACK. --Evb-wiki 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not a serious article.--Bedivere 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone wants to close this. I think we have a consensus. Chris! ct 01:26, 7 October 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.
