Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice queen

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rice queen

Rice queen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see how this article could be expanded beyobd dicdef. WP:NOT WP:WINAD may be the guiding principle here. Navou talk 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is applied, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikidictionary does define context and how the term is applied -- that's what a dictionary description does. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, Encyclopedia, social context. Please do not incorrectly use terms. Davumaya 11:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you think its too small, merge into Asian fetish. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The amount of data is not in question, it is notability that is in question. For example WP:CATGRS states:
"a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders. (For example, labels such as "AIDS victim" for an HIV+ person.]"
This clearly violates neutrality. And WP:NEO states
"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities"
Meaning even if rice queen is widely used, it is very recent and does not appear in records. "Rice queen" clearly violates many of the Wikipedia:Notability and inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia. Sure, peoples' individual opinions may say otherwise but for Wikipedia, this is not an acceptable article. This article's fate should have been deletion upon its very creation based off of Wikipedia's own rules. If we ignore Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:policies_and_guidelines and allow this article to persevere somehow, I have very little faith we understand why there are policies in the first place. This is not a question of improvement, this is a question of the integrity of Wikipedia and our world society. A term that is born out of racism internationally should not be allowed to prosper.
And please read User:Daduzi/Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions the Google Test is not what we base our judgements on. Davumaya 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep or merge with redirectSpeedy keep A copy & paste nom deserves a copy & paste response. The concept of a "rice queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~50,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me. Are you trying to make a point? --Ssbohio 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Upon further review, and after talking with JzG, I'm amending to show my support for either keeping the article or merging its content into gay slang with a redirect. If the text becomes large enough, it can always be broken back out into a separate article. --Ssbohio 18:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of "commonplace usage within media." Davumaya 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - not dicdef, see Wiktionary, sourced & now has "other uses", including one of the only non-touristy Asian restaurants in Berlin! SkierRMH 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The Wiktionary entry for "Rice Queen" includes the template "It has been suggested that this entry does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion", yet it is much better referenced than the Wikipedia article WINAD entry for it. CyberAnth 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply- I think you'll find that half those references were added after the entry was tagged [1]. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply 2 - Thanks to whomever referenced these correctly, and the disambig page, which works much better! And to CyberAnth, remember that part of the point of AfD is not only to get articles deleted, but to bring questionable ones to the attention of editors who could possibly bring them into compliance with WP standards - just read the template "Please improve the article if possible". You will find that most people working on the AfD board will try to work together to get articles to the point of reasonable inclusion... even on subjects they don't like! SkierRMH 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable term. Article has multiple references. There is even a book called Diaries of a Rice Queen which deals with this topic. Johntex\talk 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete lacks decent sources. Minor neologism at best. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per my reasons in previous AFDs. Terence Ong 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [2] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slang dictionary term; not a topic that an encyclopedia article can by built on. --JWSchmidt 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability cannot be established under current notability guidelines. Article lacks citation. It is also a term and should be incorporated into the wiki dictionary project. In terms of substance, the subject matter is a derogatory term that was propagated by a very small minority of the white population of the United States and only continues to be propagated through white influence. Davumaya 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\talk 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Deletion should be used immediately for libelous statements." The term "rice queen" is libel, it defames all people who unwillingly may be given such a description -- through no fault of their own. Sourced scholar work determines it to be offensive and undergoing an elimination. This could technically be a class-action suit based on preferences. Second, "rice queen" is a neologism and that has no place here in Wikipedia, it is an invented term, socially constructed, made up one day by some gay men. It is only the internet that has propagated a term, it has no formal grounds within communities other than evidence of racism. This term is not on par with established derogatory slurs such as chink or faggot. Davumaya 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a dicdef, referenced, 50,000+ google hits term has been in use for at least 8 years. Mallanox 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please this term is notable and is sourced very well too erasing it would make no sense at all Yuckfoo 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (forgot to actually make a vote earlier). It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean Delete, the talk rules for "Dicdef" is shorthand for "This is a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary". So if Wikipedia is not dictionary, why are you suggesting we keep? Davumaya 11:26, 11 January 2007 (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.