Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charva

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. I didn't merge it as its all POV. I give up caring about this topic, so now you can be as London-centric as you want. Hedley 02:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charva

Redirect to Chav, not notable enough for separate article SqueakBox 21:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Just to explain why Squeakbox is listing this while voting to redirect: vfd for this page was suggested here and there is an active dispute in progress as to how to make this article more npov. Some feel it should be deleted outright, and so listing here was suggested. Personally I feel it should be merged with Chav. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Would prefer a delete but will settle for redirect. Despite its pretensions, the article makes no attempt to reference its claims and reads like a personal essay. There's barely a single assertion that can't be immediately questioned eg Charvas often stay within their own 'clan', and gang fights can be common, again backing up the theory of mild US influence. What is a charva 'clan'? Are their fights common or not? Whose theory are we talking about? How is their gang fighting a US-influenced phenomenon? adamsan 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chav. The word 'charva' is just a variant of 'chav' used mainly in the North East of England, and despite the extensive discussion on the talk page I remain to be convinced that it warrants its own article. AdorableRuffian 21:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect to chav if we absolutely must). Nasty class prejudice, as well as mainly being a dialect variant of chav. — OwenBlacker 22:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or if neccessary, redirect to chav. This article is POV and unverified. I do not see how it can be verified either. Furthermore, it seems to be a close regional variant of chav, which only minor, if any, differences. -- Joolz 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Although a vote from someone who lives where they do will make little difference, Strong über "Or your children will be next~!" keep for the simple reason articles on Islam which are POV aren't deleted. Also, this is not the same thing as chav, which is to be honest even less factually correct than this one. Hedley 08:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Delete because I, quite frankly, couldn't care less. Hedley 18:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any NPOV information into Chav and redirect. Charva, Chav, Townie etc are different regional names for the same group of people, but the southern-English Chav is the name the media (predominantly based in southern England) have taken to using, and so is the best known of all the names. The others should be redirects. Thryduulf 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That can only be true if one restricts onesself to the U.K. concept(s) of a townie, note. Uncle G 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chav. JamesBurns 09:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with chav.. I have seen no evidence against the idea that charva is nothing but a regional variant of chav, and the POV issues here are so great (the article would be a stub if all the unverifiable POV were deleted) that we would benefit more from concentrating on a single article. BTW, we shouldn't keep bad articles because others are doing it. If there are articles on Islam with such amounts of POV, we should try to remedy that instead of making other articles as POV as them. EldKatt (Talk) 10:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with chav. All regional variants should be treated similarly. Secretlondon 11:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with chav. As the article has no references and presents opinion as fact, it is unlikely that there will be much material worth merging. Warofdreams 13:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. The distinction between this lot and the chavs made in para 2 is totally groundless, anyway: [chav] = "often anybody who is stereotypical of the lower class". Nah, that's not right. –Hajor 20:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Mrege and redirect. James F. (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I agree with EldKatt, alleged POV somewhere is not an excuse for abuse (for it is far worse than just biased writing) here. It disturbs me that User:Hedley is taking this line. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with chav. I've never quite understood why this merited a seperate article from chav in the first place. I've lost count of the number of different names I've heard depending on the part of the country being talked about. Neither "chav" or "charva" are the terms used where I come from, but "chav" is the one that's been picked up by the national media. While there may be regional variations I don't see that chavs of one part of the country are totally unrelated to charvas of another part. The article also has quite a POV problem: "Charvas are widely thought in the North as the scum of British youth today." Presumably the charvas themselves don't take this view. The article's blanket statements about charvas almost remind me of the 1911 EB's country articles talking about the "national character" of somewhere. Compare "Most charvas are considered to be unintelligent, and rarely show any intelligence that they may have, in order to look good around their mates.", "Socially charvas are seen as dis-obedient with a mind of their own." and "Although some can be reasonable, most commit crimes.", with "If the Chinese character is inferior to the European, this inferiority lies in the fact that the Chinaman's whole philosophy of life disinclines him to change or to energetic action. He is industrious; but his industry is normally along the lines marked out by authority and tradition. He is brave; but his courage does not naturally seek an outlet in war." I think we'd do well to have all this stuff under one article so it can be kept in a reasonable state. No one is saying we can't talk about regional differences, so this is a merge, not a delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lost count of the number of different names I've heard depending on the part of the country being talked about. Neither "chav" or "charva" are the terms used where I come from, but "chav" is the one that's been picked up by the national media. - round our way it's Ned -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia has Ned (Scottish), notice, from which I excised a whole load of such regional synonyms (which are all in Wiktionary) a while back. Uncle G 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Which illustrates the need to merge because I'm not Scottish. Kev is another local one too. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ned (Scottish) to help nuke localisation on Wikipedia, which we clearly want. Hedley 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a mischaractization. The issue here is sourcing and verifiability. The editors commenting above appear to be commenting on the fact that in fact there is no localization here, and that, regional pride in who had the concept first and whose spellings are the correct ones notwithstanding, there are no sources provided that make a distinction between the concepts of a charva and a chav. Whereas the BBC and Anoop Nayak from the University of Newcastle think that the two are the same thing. Uncle G 09:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Chav. —Ashley Y 03:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: There seems to be some confusion as to why this article is on VfD. I certainly didn't vote as I did because of the POV issues alone, as should be clear from my previous comments. I hope, and indeed believe, that nobody else did either. As of now, it's unlikely that I'll vote either way in the Ned VfD since I don't want to spend my time reading up on that term, but in the case of charva I hold the firm opinion that it's not different enough from chav to have its own article. The thing that could change that would be new facts being unearthed that point to more differences, but that hasn't happened yet. EldKatt (Talk) 07:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redirect to Chav.--Ade myers 23:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) The article tries but fails to convince me of the difference from Chavs. Although it does make a valid point about the rise in chav/charva culture due to post-industrial deprevation, especially in the North of England.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.