Talk:American-born Chinese
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mglovesfun
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
For Citations:American-born Chinese
Didn't really know where to list this. Do we keep the citations page even when the main space page has failed rfd? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely, as long as the content is accurate we want to keep all Citations pages. The fact that a page got RFDed means that it doesn't meet the CFI at the moment, that doesn't mean it won't in the future and the Citations pages are meant to be a resource to help with that determination. - [The]DaveRoss 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently we "always" delete orphaned talk pages too, which I'm not for either because the information might be relevant if someone wants to know why it was deleted. Plus Ruakh must think the same, as he's archived discussion of deleted articles to talk pages, which I would be for. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Further, I was under the impression that all citations of any deleted entry or sense were to go into citations space for that headword. It may be that at some time in the future we will find it worthwhile to reconsider, but a record of the effort at attestation is worth preserving in Talk and Citation spaces, IMHO. The citations might even be useful as preformatted citations for other terms. At present we would have significant difficulty in attempting to infer our inclusion rules from our actual choices since the most important part of the record (deletions) is not systematically indexed, except by the transclusion of the template used to box the deletion decision. That only occurs for senses, not for headwords, under our normal practice, as I understand it. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- No skin off my nose, I just nominated it as I didn't know whether to go to the Beer Parlour, or here. May as well keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re: "Apparently we 'always' delete orphaned talk pages too": Not exactly. The main purpose of a talk-page is to discuss how to improve an entry. Once the entry is deleted, that purpose is gone, and if that's what the talk-page is about, then we can delete it. But when an entry has failed RFV or RFD, the talk-page serves a different purpose: presenting the history, so that later readers can see why it was deleted, and judge whether that's still applicable. (For example, an English word might fail RFV, but a later reader might want to create an entry for a French word with the same spelling. Without the talk-page archiving, a non-admin would have no way of knowing that that's O.K., because (s)he'd have no way of knowing that it was the English word that failed RFV.) —RuakhTALK 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Further, I was under the impression that all citations of any deleted entry or sense were to go into citations space for that headword. It may be that at some time in the future we will find it worthwhile to reconsider, but a record of the effort at attestation is worth preserving in Talk and Citation spaces, IMHO. The citations might even be useful as preformatted citations for other terms. At present we would have significant difficulty in attempting to infer our inclusion rules from our actual choices since the most important part of the record (deletions) is not systematically indexed, except by the transclusion of the template used to box the deletion decision. That only occurs for senses, not for headwords, under our normal practice, as I understand it. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently we "always" delete orphaned talk pages too, which I'm not for either because the information might be relevant if someone wants to know why it was deleted. Plus Ruakh must think the same, as he's archived discussion of deleted articles to talk pages, which I would be for. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It's being used as an actual citations page, it contains valid citations of the headword, it doesn't include a definition or anything — no reason to delete. —RuakhTALK 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Duplicate at Citations:American-born and Citations:Chinese (adjusting bolding) then delete. If it's sum of parts, then so is the Citation. SemperBlotto 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my nomination and moving to the Beer Parlour to look for a 'consensus'. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)