Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjack

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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anjack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is, figuratively speaking, overflowing with original research. There is no evidence that this term has usage in reliable sources. Some hits pop up on urban dictionary and YouTube videos, but these obviously can't be used to legitimize this term. Current sources in the article point to news or general discussions of crime and gangster culture without actually using this term. I am concerned this article could be a possible coatrack for racial issues in Singapore. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i feel the article is non biased, and from a fair viewpoint which is what society views anjacks as, in all fairness the wiki pedia page about ah bengs is similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londoncalling111 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you say? Anyway, delete because I couldn't find reliable usage for this term either. In addition, the article starts off talking about the term but then it seems to go into random subject matter with the word thrown in here and there for good measure. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 Could not find enough reliable sources covering the term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources, either. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that the term has usage in reliable sources. Cavarrone 06:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.