Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prune tang

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prune tang

Bogus sociological article about sex among the elderly. When asked for references to this neologism, response has been to put up a citation to scholarly journal -- as if sociologist would use a boy's junior-high phrase -- and to slap a "vandalism" warning on my talk page. Calton | Talk 08:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. The only thing I put on your talk page was a request to explain why my reference wasn't good enough. You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page (my first on Wikipedia) and attempted to work WITH you, and I don't understand why you have a vendetta of some sort against me. Bongout 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• The phrase is used because that's what the elderly themselves use. Really? Mind providing a smidgen of a scrap of a particle of evidence for that, as I've repeatedly asked?
• You've been nothing but rude and abusive to me since I created this page Yes, those standard requests for verification are so rude. --Calton | Talk 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already provided a scholarly, peer-reviewed source for the use of that phrase. However, that problem could be solved by moving the article rather than deleting it, so that's a discussion for somewhere and sometime else. As well, searching Google for "Prune tang" will provide amble evidence of the phrase's use.

I never claimed your requesting verification was rude. However, the snide, sarcastic remarks you used to request verification was rude. The way you accused me of editing your talk page to add a vandalism warning was rude (since, afterall, placing something like that on the page of someone so obviously committed to fighting vandalism as yourself would be farcical). The way you abrasively refused to clarify why you had a problem with my reference was rude. The way you put the article on AfD right after I explained to you in polite, civil words exactly how the paper was relevant was rude. I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I feel you're unfairly bullying me. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to back up your bogus-sounding claim with actual evidence and bringing it to wider attention when you refuse: very nasty behavior, ennit? But if your claims about this article -- and this word -- are true, you ought to welcome the attention, where you can prove the veracity of your claims and show me up by actual demonstration (instead of off-topic complaining). I'm asking you to prove a claim: if that makes me rude, then that means you're dealing with an army of Grinches here, since simple verifiability is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Don't like it? Go to Urban Dictionary or Uncyclopedia and try your luck there. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• According to Google, the reference provided does not exist, nor does the journal the reference was taken from. The author of the reference, "Ping-Chun Hsiung" does exist (she's an associate professor at Toronto University). I am attempting to email her via a provided address to verify that she did indeed write such an article. Stay tuned. -- saberwyn 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Google isn't an authoritative source for scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, I believe you may be wrong in your assumption that it's the Ping-Chun Hsiung of the University of Toronto that we're talking about. Bongout 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Either as an attack on Prune tang or a neologism of no note. Can anyone imagine numbers of senior citizens using this phrase ? - Peripitus 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've already provided a number of sources that show the phrase is indeed in use, including by the elderly. It's notable because it is an entire movement among some populations of the elderly. Bongout 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've already provided a number of sources. For the umpteenth time, you have done NO such thing. You stuck in a scholarly looking footnote for a probably non-existent journal: "Prune tang" is not in the title of the alleged paper, nor is there use of the term in a quote from the paper -- or, indeed, any quotes or direct references whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing more than a dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I really, truly think that a description of sociological analysis is more encylopaedic than a dictionary definition. Bongout 09:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• My compliments - you're working hard. However, the article does not go into sociological analysis. Its referent journal does not exist according to ATHENS or MUSE (or Google Scholar for that matter). There are no web references, even disreputable ones, using the term in this way. Give it up. Vizjim 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article does go into sociological analysis. ATHENS and MUSE simply don't carry all journals, especially not one as highly specialized as the one I drew the article from. We should wait for further verification before deleting the article. Wikipedia is a great place for notable but obscure topics. 09:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• The onus is on you to provide checkable verification for the article. A seemingly non-existent journal is not verification. If you can provide another scholarly article that cites that publication, a library reference anywhere in the world, details of its publishers, or a website for the journal or its sponsoring institution, there will at least be something to go on. As it stands, this article is an unverified dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am working to provide you with all the information I have that could possibly be relevant, yet the deletion procedure continues before I even have a chance to provide it, let alone before it can be WP:Ved. I am currently looking into things, but the best I can give you write now is the address of the publisher listed in the journal: Department of Sociology Publishing Division, University of Tirana, Square "Nene Terezat", Albania. Please stand by while more information is obtained. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's oddly unsurprising that when I phone the University of Tirana (+355 4 228402), the lady there has no record of this journal. Though this discussion is livening up a tremendously boring day at work no end, I think you're reaching the end of this one. Vizjim 10:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• What's more surprising is that in your user page, where, by the way, you say you enjoy obscure topics, you make no mention of knowing Albanian. The University of Tirana is a big institution, and do you really expect a mere receptionist at a general inquiry number to know of every publication at the university? It's more likely that some combination of the following interfered: a) communications difficulties; b) ignorance; c) disinterest in helping a foreign national, Albania still being one of the most insular countries on the Continent; and d) unluckiness. I have a copy of the journal, so it does exist. If people are unable to contact the publisher, I am willing to mail the journal to someone trusted who will verify that it does indeed exist. However, I really don't think we will have to resort to that. I am confident the publisher can be contacted. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't speak Albanian: the person I spoke to spoke English (and, by the way, they don't deserve your series of cultural stereotypes - they were lovely). I don't expect them to know the journal: I do expect them to know publishing divisions. Again, I repeat: the onus is on you to verify, and you have not done so. Vizjim 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you knew more about sociology, you would know it is very common for people to be excessively but only obstensibly kind to people who they consider to be part of an out group they feel they should be antagonistic to. I understand the onus is on me, and I'm trying everything I can think of to veryify it to your satisfaction. However, due to the obscurity (but not invalidity) of my source, I seem to be having trouble doing that. Do you have any suggestions? Bongout 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Man, I love these Marshall McLuhan/Annie Hall moments. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. The Journal of Comparative and Contrastive Sociology does not exist. Name the publisher and provide proof of its existence if it does. It has no impact factor [1], and as such I question its use as a verifiable scholarly source. -- Samir धर्म 10:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a classic argument from authority. Also, it can hardly be said that Thomson -- itself a publisher -- wouldn't have a vested interest in keeping certain journals from looking good. Bongout 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer this one: What institution is Dr. Hsiung affiliated with (if not the University of Toronto). Should be right in the article... -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the journal, she is (or was) a professor specializing in comparative sociology at Liaoning Normal University in Dalian. Bongout 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And that was a classic straw man. Delete. --Agamemnon2 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a straw man. I'm not ignoring the thrust of the concern, i.e. the sometimes difficult task of finding a copy of an obscure scholarly journal. Just as I have done with everyone from the beginning of this whole mess, I have complied as completely and to the best of my ability as I can. You can dismiss my specific argument against Samir's concerns, but if you look into it at all, you'll see that I have been very amenable and compliant. Bongout 11:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NEO. RobLinwood 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I simply must stress that this is a sociological, philosophical, and sexuological phenomenon, not a mere definition. Bongout 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable if it does exist. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Without getting into an intricate ontological debate that is itself of and on ontology, I can assure you that, for any normal sense of the word 'exist', this phenemenon/movement does indeed exist. Bongout 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above. If it does exist at all, it's a dicdef and not a Wikipedia entry. Devotchka 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Lambiam^Talk 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely no evidence that the only source exists. I'm sure that even a small journal could muster one Google hit. -- Mithent 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I think this article is an excellent addition to wikipedia's sex archives. The journal cited is also a scholarly and verifiable source. I invite all the users who are pressing for this fine article's deletion to go visit Phoenix, Arizona and experience Prune tang for themselves. Aside from some sexual first-timer pleasure, they will be hit with the undeniable fact that this movement is alive and well in the United States of America. --[User:Daloonik|Daloonik]] 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User's 5th edit on Wikipedia. The first, note, was to the article creator's User Page [2]. Hmm, I sense knit footwear.--Calton | Talk 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• The journal cited is also a scholarly and verifiable source. Um, no, it isn't - especially the latter. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Incredibly obvious delete, although the author is to be congratulated (is that the word I'm looking for?) for their dogged determination. Picking an article written by an author in China published in a Albanian journal was a nice touch; props to Vizjim for the legwork. If this journal does exist, a scan of the masthead with the board of editors, and the table of contents of the issue in question would make me pause long enough to reconsider my vote (and eat my hat). Highly entertaining. bikeable (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously, this latest delete suggestion should not be considered, since the author mentioned is neither in China, nor is Albanian. Please eat your hat. Daloonik 03:40, 27 May 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.