Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 7 July 2019

Han–Uyghur intermarriage

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Han–Uyghur intermarriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not cover its ostensible subject and is basically an attack page. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of deletion discussions related to Central Asia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I feel like this article abuses its sources and stretches them to make a political point, while perhaps this should be a page in the future as it stands I say blow it up and start over. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice to starting a new article with the same title - This is a potential subject if suitable references could be found, but as it stands this is just an attack piece and should be deleted per WP:DYNAMITE. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:DYNAMITE is neither policy nor guideline. As there are widespread reports that China is razing Uighur mosques (example), a further appeal to violence seems in poor taste. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This from a leading member of the so-called "Article Rescue Squadron" who didn't raise a finger when this happened... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not understanding the nomination because, at first reading, the page seems to contain lots of information about the ostensible topic. The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable. As it's an early start on a cleanup, then it would be silly and disruptive to start again so soon. In any case, merger back into the parent would be preferable to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the references is actually WP:SIGCOV of the topic per se. Instead the content of this article appears to be cherry-picked quotes from larger works which simply mention Uighur-Han marriage in passing. It's basically a big collection of WP:OR, with the quotations always selected so as to reflect badly on Uighur people. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. For example, the Bride and prejudice source is clearly WP:SIGCOV. Other sources seem to cover the topic as part of wider coverage of Han-Uyghur relations and they are WP:SIGCOV too. And there are plenty more sources out there to expand and improve the topic such as Chinese authorities offer cash to promote interethnic marriages. The topic is clearly not original and claims that it's an attack page seem to be reaching too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect per BRD. I'm not seeing where Andrew is coming from claiming this page's history makes it clear it was split off from the long Xinjiang history article -- at the time this article was created, that article contained a single short section on this topic, corresponding basically to the lead of the present article. The present article reads a bit like a POVFORK of the other article, created at its current location to get around the scrutiny of the original article's 63 page watchers. Obviously the topic is notable, but we really shouldn't be allowing the present article to exist in its present state if the only ones who think it should be so are the article's creator and editors who are opposed to all of the "alternatives to keeping" on principle. This looks a little like the old "deletionists telling editors who specialize in this topic area what they can and can't do with their own articles" problem seen, for example, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination), and Talk:Mottainai Bāsan#Requested move 7 December 2018. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The first edit which created the article was substantial (17K) and the summary was "first stroke from History of Xinjiang". We should wait on the creator to explain this in more detail. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not what you said above: The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable -- this argument doesn't make sense, since the corresponding section of the Xinjiang history article could not be reasonably shortened based on the existence of this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. I don't really care. This is a blatant and intolerable attack page. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This seem like a notable topic, plenty of reliable sources to talk about it. If you see any problems then tag them or discuss them on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 12:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per nom and Mkativerata. POV fork/attack page. -- Begoon 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates