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 No consensus Arguments for delete, keep and merge are presented and the positions of the three are not well reconcilable at this time. The determination of how related the terms Chindia and Chindian are is not resolved and is central to the disposition of the two terms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chindian[edit]

Chindian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Apparent neologism - the only source I trust in the list of four only mentions the term in passing. Will (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found 6 other sources. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] If you want to exclude sources of questionable reliability, that still leaves The Star, Straits Times, The Guardian, and Rediff. Wl219 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interestingly the Chindia article refers to the word Chindia as a neologism. Either the article is wrong, or it should be deleted. Bigdaddy1981 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. I removed "neologism" - it was a neologism two years ago, I think it's safe to consider it an integral part of the language now. --Targeman 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're basing your delete vote on Chindian's relation to Chindia, I don't think you're doing this in good faith since you haven't responded to Targeman's edits. If Chindia is no longer so new as to be a neologism, it follows that Chindian isn't either. Wl219 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Sorry, but that's illogical for two reasons.
First: Just because Chindia exists and is not a neologism does not mean Chindians exists as a non-neologism. BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) also exists and is not a neologism but if someone puts up an article for "Bricians" or "Bricites" as a purported term for the denizens of these countries; I'll vote to delete that one too.
Second: If you read the two articles carefully you will see how bad an idea a merge is. Chindia is a term used to refer to both China and India while Chindian refers - not to denizens of either India or China - but instead to only people of *mixed* Chinese Indian ancestry.
Please think more carefully before accusing other editors of bad faith - its very rude. Bigdaddy1981 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused you of bad faith, I simply refused to extend to you an assumption of good faith based on the fact that you didn't explain your vote in light of your earlier comments. Further, bringing BRIC into this is WP:WAX. Bottom line, Chindian is not a neologism, having been the subject of several sourceable media articles ([7] and [8] and [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13], among others, with the earliest mention I could find going back to 1998). Wl219 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, my mention of BRIC has nothing to do with WP:WAX - it is simply a hypothetical example of a similar case to this one - where a non-neologism noun exists but the collective noun does not. I am afraid I must disagree with you with regards to this article. Chindian is a neologism and moreover bears no relation to the non-neologism Chindia. For these reasons, this article should be deleted not merged. I did not feel I had to make more mention of Chindia in my initial vote as I consider the two subjects quite separate, I merely pointed out earlier that the Chindia article incorrectly deems the word a neologism.

As an aside, I note that you are encouraged to assume good faith on Wikipedia something you freely admit you refused to do - that's nearly as rude as accusing me of bad faith. Please, let's keep some civility to these discussions. Bigdaddy1981 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not assuming good faith is not the same as presuming bad faith. I have made no personal attacks against you or presumed bad faith, malice, hidden agenda, whatever. I simply pointed out that, since you did not explain your vote in light of Targeman's edits, automatic AGF is questionable without further explanation from you. You have since provided further explanation, which I do not agree with, but nonetheless. If you want to keep this civil, don't make this bigger than it is (or more accurately, isn't). Wl219 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it came off as rude to you, and not to lump you in with them, but I've had more than enough AfD experiences where editors have pulled the WP:CIVIL card on me when they themselves have been uncivil... Wl219 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, I understand that you were not intending to be rude. I suppose I should have offered more explanation in my earlier "vote" as I accept now that it is not unnatural to assume that my comment re Chindia and my "vote" re Chindian were related. Bigdaddy1981 06:54, 5 August 2007 (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.
More