Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresa
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 Keep Eluchil404 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fresa
Reprodded deprod, changing to AfD. The reason given was WP:WINAD, but I'm not sure this applies here. Procedural nomination; but given the content of the article, I'm voting neutral, not no vote. --ais523 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. This article only defines this slang term, both go against the aforementioned policy. --Porqin 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, one way to fix a mis-placed dictionary article is to turn it from a dictionary article about a word into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. I've started this. Research shows that there is a cultural stereotype in Mexico that is commonly known as "fresa". But it is proving difficult to find sources that discuss it any more than superficially. (There are plenty of "fresas say 'o sea' all of the time!" "no they don't!" "yes they do!" arguments on discussion fora, but those aren't sources.) Like chav, this article requires strict sourcing to prevent the introduction of original research. This was an exceedingly bad start to an article. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I don't think we need to support an English language article on an alleged Mexican slang word that has no article in the Spanish language Wikipedia. If Spanish language speakers don't find such an article notable, why should we? Rklawton 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a poor argument given that the article simply might not have been written in the Spanish language Wikipedia yet. The Spanish language Wikipedia has roughly 1/10th the number of articles of the English language one, and 1/10th the number of editors. To argue that Spanish language speakers don't find the subject notable, one has to look at the world at large rather than at Wikipedia (as is always the case with notability). There is no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject. I mentioned above that one can find them arguing about it, in Mexican Spanish, on discussion fora. Uncle G 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's leave the POV of whether or not my argument is "poor" out of the discussion. If you don't like the argument, just say why. Now, to address your "why"... If they're actively debating the article then 1/10th resources aren't an issue for this particular article. Posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it is like saying to them "hey, we know your language better than you do." Let the Spanish language speakers sort things out first in their language. If they decide it's a worthy article, only then should it appear in other languages. Rklawton 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- A poor argument is a poor argument. And the argment that we should have no article because the Spanish Wikipedia has no article is a poor argument, plain and simple, for the reasons stated. Your additional argument, about "posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it" is irrelevant, simply because it bears no relation whatsoever to what is happening here. There is no such debate. The article is being debated here. Finally: Waiting for the Spanish Wikipedia to decide whether articles are worthy before writing about the subjects in the English Wikipedia is a very bizarre approach to constructing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- A "poor argument" is a personal judgment - and it runs counter to WP:CIVIL (see Examples section). I based my recommendation on your comment that there was "no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject." For the purposes of this AfD, I simply propose waiting for the experts to sort out what's what before creating an English language article about Spanish language slang. By way of illustration, I would find it strange if someone wrote an article in the Finnish Wikipedia about a debatable English-language slang word not found in our own version. Rklawton 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. I think it's OK to say that an argument is "good" or "poor". There is, admittedly, a fine line between arguing that an argument is "poor" and making a personal attack on the person making the argument. Nonetheless, I would suggest that both sides "chill out" and focus on the arguments rather than characterizing whether an argument is "poor" or not. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- A "poor argument" is a personal judgment - and it runs counter to WP:CIVIL (see Examples section). I based my recommendation on your comment that there was "no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject." For the purposes of this AfD, I simply propose waiting for the experts to sort out what's what before creating an English language article about Spanish language slang. By way of illustration, I would find it strange if someone wrote an article in the Finnish Wikipedia about a debatable English-language slang word not found in our own version. Rklawton 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- A poor argument is a poor argument. And the argment that we should have no article because the Spanish Wikipedia has no article is a poor argument, plain and simple, for the reasons stated. Your additional argument, about "posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it" is irrelevant, simply because it bears no relation whatsoever to what is happening here. There is no such debate. The article is being debated here. Finally: Waiting for the Spanish Wikipedia to decide whether articles are worthy before writing about the subjects in the English Wikipedia is a very bizarre approach to constructing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's leave the POV of whether or not my argument is "poor" out of the discussion. If you don't like the argument, just say why. Now, to address your "why"... If they're actively debating the article then 1/10th resources aren't an issue for this particular article. Posting the article in English while the Spanish speakers debate it is like saying to them "hey, we know your language better than you do." Let the Spanish language speakers sort things out first in their language. If they decide it's a worthy article, only then should it appear in other languages. Rklawton 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a poor argument given that the article simply might not have been written in the Spanish language Wikipedia yet. The Spanish language Wikipedia has roughly 1/10th the number of articles of the English language one, and 1/10th the number of editors. To argue that Spanish language speakers don't find the subject notable, one has to look at the world at large rather than at Wikipedia (as is always the case with notability). There is no shortage of Spanish language speakers discussing this subject. I mentioned above that one can find them arguing about it, in Mexican Spanish, on discussion fora. Uncle G 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent original research unless suitable citations are found. WilyD 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I was revisiting this discussion with this edit to point out that I had finally found a few for some parts of the article. They are written by Spanish language speakers. Uncle G 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: now it has cultural discussion and sources for some of its claims, it is clearly an acceptable article. The question of sourcing or deleting the claims that remain uncited is one for the article talk page, not AfD. — Haeleth Talk 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Es.wiki is only 1/10 of the size of En.wiki so lot's of perfectly valid articles don't yet exist there. Given the good work that's been put into this article let's keep it. There are lots of Google hits even if few good ones. Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable term in Mexico on the same level as chilango, for instance, or even dandy in England back on the day. It needs to be more thoroughly sourced, but that is no reason for deletion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:WINAD is not applicable as the article has encyclopedic information. I also agree with the preceding arguments in favor of keeping this article. --Richard 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Relatively common concept, and rather important in understanding Mexican social dynamics. JZ 05:37, 17 July 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.
