Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah lian

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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah lian[edit]

same as Ah beng: nothing but POV and insults 65.96.170.119 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I can't claim to know a lot about the subject, but it does seem that Google has recorded a lot of hits on this termm, and it does seem to be used. No question the page needs some cleanup and NPOV editing, but as far as I can tell, this does appear to be real. --Bachrach44 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable. While poorly written and filled with POV it is referenced. Ifnord 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Weak delete per Uncle G. PJM 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Ah beng: What is wrong with this article is the same thing that is wrong with articles such as Westies (people), Bogan, and Chav: The article is a massive original research magnet. Contrary to what Ifnord says, the article isn't referenced very well, or even at all, really; and verifiability has not been demonstrated. It contains a few external hyperlinks to some web sites, none of which are exactly reliable sources (most are the same web sites that are listed for Ah beng), and the content of the article is only weakly supported by the "sources" in any event. This may be a valid stereotype. But I'd like to see evidence that it is verifiable, i.e. that there are reliable sources available that editors can use for constructing a verifiable and neutral article on the subject. There have been attempts to make Chav more verifiable, and less a collection of mere original research added by random Wikipedia editors, and the article now sports a (scant) few reliable sources. It needs to be demonstrated that the same is at least possible for this article. That hasn't actually been done yet. Citing reliable sources, thereby demonstrating that they exist, will do it, though. Weak delete. Uncle G 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To retort Uncle G's comments, the "Ah beng and Ah Lian" phenomenon is well documented in Singapore, and there're plenty of cultural references to them in local newspapers and context. One can write a good article on it that's neither biased nor as inaccurate as what is presented here. It is documented here [1]. I have to vote keep and merge (Ah Beng with Ah Lian). Mandel 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A self-described "Satirical Humour Website" (which is written right at the top of that page) is as unreliable a source as Uncyclopedia is. Please cite some reliable sources. Please prove that this is well-documented. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about Lonely Planet Singapore? [2] Mandel 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. ESkog | ^Talk 18:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G (who makes a good argument for keep, yet then votes delete!). Whether we think its insulting is irrelevant. Its a real term. Bogan etc exist. Just clean up with the POV elements. Zordrac 01:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "verifiability has not been demonstrated" is not an argument to keep. Uncle G 03:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is very commonly used in Malaysia and Singapore. Not sure about the main content, but the intro does give a fairly accurate description of people who fall under 'Ah lian' category. Hayabusa future 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How are readers supposed to verify that the article is accurate as you say, aside from taking the word of a Wikipedia editor that they have never met for it? Please demonstrate that this article is verifiable. Uncle G 18:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is inaccurate, but the term is certainly verifiable. See [3] from The Straits Times, which uses the term in context. Mandel 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are conflating attestation (which is what a dictionary would ask for) with verification. All that that link gives is an example of the phrase "Ah Beng" (which is not even the title of the article under discussion) being used in a sentence. It doesn't actually tell us what an Ah Beng is, let alone what an Ah Lian is.
      So I ask again: How are readers supposed to verify an encyclopaedia article that purports to tell them what an Ah Lian is? So far, all that we've had that actually attempts to describe the concept are dictionaries that are by their own admission humourous. Please cite a source, that doesn't say "This is just for fun-lah!" or "This is a Satirical Humour Website" right at the top of the page, telling us what an Ah Lian is. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about Lonely Planet Singapore? [4] Mandel 14:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Izehar 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This article is so poorly written, that if voted keep, it ought to be completely rewritten. It's almost an embarassment that a Singaporean or Malaysian could write so badly. Mandel 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per UncleG (absolute minimal references to establish verifyability would be coverage as cultural phenomenon in established print media of note) Pete.Hurd 03:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it above. Lots more references in[5] Mandel 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are quotations, that a dictionary uses to show a word actually in use, not references. That's more like a reliable source. It professes to be a serious attampt at a Singlish dictionary. The fact that it is a dictionary, however, does mean that there's less than one sentence of information about Ah Lians there, because that's all that the dictionary entry gives us, and everything in the current article, all of the text that purports to describe fashion, jobs, music, and language, must be excised as having no reliable sources supporting it. Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't quotations that the word is in use from a reputable source proof enough that a) the term is verifiable, and also, b) these terms are defined: He says he doesn’t give a hoot if people call him an ah beng, a catch-all term for the uncouth, the uneducated, the unrefined, the unenlightened, who blindly define status by the brands they own. .. “I’m the king of bengs,” he laughs, “I have my own Prada bag, Prada shoes, Prada jacket, Gucci belt, clothes from Calvin Klein, Armani, Valentino..” (Cleo, May 1999)
    - If that's what you are asking for, a dictionary on Singlish terms published by OUP or Cambridge before you call something verifiable, then I'm afraid you won't be able to find any. Ditto with any dialect terms used in a third-world country. What is verifiable of course, is that such terms are in use (proven), and to me that's good enough to persuade anyone that such terms should stay in Wikipedia. Unless you think there's a universal hoax going on, I can tell you the description of this term is pretty accurate here, and unless you think a book publisher has more integrity than several Wikipedians here, and not one, you have to take someone's word for it.
    - Using your same argument, so, if an obscure movie is shown to exist in IMDB, we still shouldn't include it because none of us have watched it, and we can't take the word of those who have, right? Mandel 14:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some work to make it NPOV but has the makings of an interesting article. Rhion 18:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs sources to demonstrate that it is verifiable. How do you propose that readers check what the article says about Ah Lians? From whence do you propose that editors obtain the information that enables them to make the article neutral, or even make an article at all? Uncle G 23:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such things should be left to those who know what this term is about, and not to the blind leading the blind. One can't learn about a culture merely from books, one has to immerse oneself right in it. Mandel 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems you are actually saying we should allow OR in certain articles. Is it correct? BorgQueen 22:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Outright Delete - Totally POV, would it hurt if these rants were removed from wikipedia? No, it wouldn't. Or at best, replace them with stubs and have someone watch the thing. As much as I hate crap like aZn pRyD3 lol, this article is absolutely unencyclopedic. - Hahnchen 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with ah beng, the term has been demonstrated to exist and be used in verifiable sources (Straits Times), and further has been shown to describe a subculture of some significant size. The criticism of the current quality level of the prose, and of the verifiability of the content may be valid, but that is an argument for cleanup, for placing NPOV tags, for refactoring... not deletion. To omit this term is to be, in my view, unencyclopedic. Note that a merge of these two articles (ah beng and this one) with proper redirects might be a good idea since they are similar. ++Lar 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Ah Lian is used daily in press and TV in Singapore, just that it is not easily verifyable does not mean we should delete the page, if all pages needed that we probably should delete 10-20% of wikipedia. Stefan 23:50, 7 December 2005 (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.