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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bisaya (Borneo)[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy as a blatant hoax by Djackalbru who wrote in the edit summary: "Most of the historical facts are not true. Mostly fiction&hearsay.NOT rec in Historical annals of Brunei&Sabah.Website "http://awangalakbetatar.synthasite.com" is dubious,created as hoax reference.No proper Brunei&Sabah historical FACTS ref." Looking at the article it does not seem like a blatant hoax and there are other articles about this ethnic group created by the same user, which may or may not be hoaxes too. Thus I list this here for more eyes and comments. No opinion. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the article is a hoax. It would be good to consult these sources:
Peranio, Roger D. (1972). "Bisaya." In Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia, edited by Frank M. LeBar. Vol. 1, Indonesia, Andaman Islands, and Madagascar, 163-166. New Haven: HRAF Press.
Punchak, Sylvester Sarnagi (1989). "Bisaya Ethnography: A Brief Report." Sarawak Museum Journal 40:37-48. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is entirely accurate. Why did you think it was a hoax. Thirty minutes on google would have dozen's of primary and seconday sources. Apart from that, the article needs shortened, it could be at WP:LENGTH or more, wikified and cleaned up. It needs trimmed, anything that can' be verified. scope_creep (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What search term did you use? "Bisaya (Borneo) -wikipedia" turns up only tonnes of mirrors. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some paragraph must be deleted cos No solid reference period..In regards of Awang Alak Betatar as a bisaya or in bisaya history its mostly fiction & hearsay. Not recorded at all in annals of Brunei, Sabah or Sarawak Historical facts.These following paragraph are not accurate ,(1)'The lost treasure', (2)'Brunei Historical Centre version',(3)'Tales from Limbang,' (4)The first king of Borneo,..etc..etc.. is manipulated and borrowed history of other ethnic tales.. eg. Brunei Malay, Kedayan.. Whats the population of Bisaya in Temburong district, puni is in Temburong.. Even some of the foods and kuihs or 'Bubu mengalai' are of bruneian malay or kedayan ethnicity. Website "http://awangalakbetatar.synthasite.com" is very very dubious!,created by an interested party to support dubious facts but its just as hoax reference. Also most reference are just furnished hastily and mostly are irrelevant to the "Awang Alak Betatar history". This issue is very closely related to the lineage of Brunei Royals history.. There is NO proper Bruneian & Sabahan Approved & documented or recorded historical Facts and Reference..Pls delete those controversial paragraph, i'm puzzled this can be quoted ".. its entirely accurate.." ?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackalbru (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be familiar with the topic. Feel free to improve the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence and notability of the subject are clear: [1][2][3][4][5][6] and loads more. If any particular content is inaccurate then the article can be edited, but there is no reason to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (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.