Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easties (people)

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. The verifiable part of the article (the part that is or could be actually sourced with reliable sources) is a dictionary-like definition which isn't what Wikipedia is for. The rest of the article does not go beyond original research and, without any decent secondary sources, never will. --JoanneB 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easties (people)

Propose deletion of this 'article'. As a sydneysider, this looks mostly like some sort of joke; much of it certainly isnt enyclopedic. Such concerns have been raised by many on the article's talk page. The majority of the material cannnot be verified and is POV. Failing deletion, all this subject warrants is a short stub length comment. Rafy 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This sort of article - where the central definition is loose and unverified - always attracts casual editors who go in and describe, in exaggerated manner and at length, their favourite sketch comedy trashy woman stereotyped character. The external references listed in the article do not corroborate much, or any, of the article content. If it stays, the article can not contain a long list of characteristics; any characterteristic defined in the article must be backed-up by an external source Asa01 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a protologism with no sources given. I think that you would struggle to find reliable sources for this. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Comment It does have sources and it is verified. Two of the references mention the term.--WikiCats 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would you be calling for the deletion of Westies (people) too? --WikiCats 04:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Capitalistroadster. The Westies article needs cleaning up, but not deletion - "westie" is listed in the Macquarie Dictionary. JPD (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified, and seemingly unverifiable. Mako 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it has been verified. Obviously some people dislike the existance of such terms and are fighting to delete it for their own purposes, but I believe the sources quoted are solid and just the Macquarie Dictionary is behind the times doesn't mean it deserves deletion. If you object to the characterisations as being unencyclopedic, you are welcome to alter it. I also agree with the Westies term not being deleted for the same reasons.mattabat 16:23, 12 August 2006 (AEST)
• Strong Keep There is over 20,000 mentions of the term on the Internet and it has references. It is a real term and deserves an article. (Could do with a clean up)--WikiCats 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you did a google search. None of the results returned refer to the meaning or context of the term 'eastie' as meant by the wikipedia article in question. In fact the only relevant site in the results that displays this meaning of eastie, is the wiki article. So i'm not quite sure how your point is valid? Furthermore, if we narrow the search down to Australian sites only We get a mere ~1500. Most results refer to 'eastie' in a different meaning, and those results that are relevant appear on message boards and forums. The first point in WP:V is 'Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.' There are almost no reputable sources around that verify the claims made in the article. Also suggest a reading of Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Rafy 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to have misgivings about relying on Google for definitions, especially when they can be misconstrued like this. Consider the references given. mattabat 12:31, 14 August 2006 (AEST)

Is your proposal to delete Easties but leave Westies. --WikiCats 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently some think insults towards western suburbanites are acceptable for documentation, but ones towards eastern suburbanites are not. Not my viewpoint at all.mattabat 12:25, 14 August 2006 (AEST)

I tend to agree, This exposes a possible double standard.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) --WikiCats 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is good evidence that is this term in regular usage for some time. This reference Radar uses the term within this context three times. Radar is a weekly magazine published by The Sydney Morning Herald. A supporting reference also makes reference to the term.

This referenced term qualifies it for an article (in need of a clean up). --WikiCats 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms 'To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.'

Again, i ask you to read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. You'll find that in the end it is irrelevant how prevalant the word's usage is. The article relies on original research. (Bookie's blog, the term in radar etc, are not adequate references)

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material

As for Westies, it appears it has its own AfD, so the merits of that article should be discussed there. Rafy 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that you are putting an argument for the deletion of Westies.

I have no double standard. I would support the deletion of both articles or else the keeping of both articles. --WikiCats 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The issue is that neither of these articles have any complimentary comments in them. Both Westies and Easties only contain derogatory remarks. This is a NPOV issue.

I does not surprise me so many want to delete it. The problem is that in the future with more common usage the Easties article will be resurrected even if it is deleted now. There are other terms such as Northies that are coming into more common use.

We need to delete both of these articles now to put an end to this. As long as Westies exists it gives reason for other articles such as Easties and Northies. --WikiCats 06:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment At this point we have no consensus and no compromises being offered. --WikiCats 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Conclusion

• The article has a notable reference from The Sydney Morning Herald magazine Radar.
• It not a neologism or recently coined as the age of the reference shows.
• The article needs to be rewritten in neutral prose.
• There has been no consensus which I think is a great pity.

--WikiCats 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Barely enough objective content to fill three paragraphs of a stub Kransky 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A majority vote can not defeat the Guidelines. The the use of this term is referenced and it is entitled to an article written in neutral prose. --WikiCats 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

• The arguments that have been put in Westies Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) for keeping that page are just as relevant in this case.
• The case of neologisms does not apply as Easties and Westies were created within a month of each other and have existed for some considerable time. The references show usage of both terms for quite some time.
• The terms can be seen as equivalent and possibility opposite phrases so keeping one whilst deleting the other is not tenable.
• The article is in need of a cleanup and neutral prose.
• There has been strong arguments for both keeping and deleting the article. No consensus has been reached.

--WikiCats 02:41, 16 August 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.