Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (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. Keep and cleanup. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian pride

Asian pride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's been almost nine months since the first nomination and the issues still haven't been resolved. Though the subject itself would appear to be notable (hopefully someone, someday, will rewrite or re-create the article using reliable sources), as it now stands, this article is still nothing more than an original, personal essay. - ∅ (∅), 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• One issue has. The article no longer relies upon a single web page as its source. The problem now is that editors are conflating at least three distinct things:
  • Asian pride — the rejection of U.S. and European influence by Asian countries, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia in a 1994 National Geographic for example
  • Asian Pride — a part of the EPIC programme run by the University of California at Los Angeles in the mid-1970s, that evolved into Multicultural Pride and that still influences UCLA and its environs today
  • Asian pride — a group pride political movement amongst Asian Americans that has existed since the 1960s, as discussed here by the Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, for example
• Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If you acknowledge that it is notable, then the article should be kept. You can always stub it back down. Nine months isn't a long time at all; I added 2 of the 3 current sources during the last AfD, and do plan on adding more, though it hasn't been a priority with all the AfDs that crop up. –Pomte 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't find anything in WP:SOAP that says it's a criterion for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is part of WP:NOT which is policy and is often cited in AFD discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Pomte. There is some definate soapy goodness here, but doesn't look like anything that cannot be fixed. -Verdatum (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable encyclopaedic topic. The article is in need of cleanup and improvement, but still merits inclusion. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (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.