Talk:Cablinasian

This article was nominated for deletion on December 24, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

— JIP | Talk 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2007. The result of the discussion was Redirect.

I'm restoring the article because the afd ended with three of the five votes for keeping the article. Therefore, it stays. Period. Any attempts to redirect the article somewhere else amounts to vandalism and could get the person that makes the redirect banned from wikipedia. -- OldRightist 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a rather drastic viewpoint. Sure, I closed the AfD as "no consensus", meaning it won't be deleted at this time. This does not mean the article has to be kept in this form forever. Nobody's stopping anyone from being WP:BOLD and rewriting the article, changing it to a redirect, or AfD'ing it again. Your personal statement of "anyone who edits this article is a vandal" sounds like a claim of "ownership" of the article, which is contrary to the way Wikipedia works. — JIP | Talk 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:JIP, you obviously have a problem with reading. I never wrote "anyone who edits this article is a vandal". If you simply look a few lines up you'll see that I wrote "Any attempts to redirect the article somewhere else amounts to vandalism". Editing this article is alright, but nredirecting it after it already survived a vfd is not alright. This article is completely legitimate. I don't know idea why anyone would want it to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia remember, Cablinasian is an actual term. So people will surely come to this site to find out exactly what it means. If you don't like the article in its current form, then simply edit it with new and updated information. -- OldRightist 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to exaggerating by saying you said that any edit to this article is vandalism. But I also disagree with your statement that "any attempt to redirect this article somewhere else amounts to vandalism". As I said, I closed the AfD with "no consensus". This does not forbid anyone from changing the article to a redirect. A result of "no consensus" means "there wasn't a decision to keep the article, nor to delete it, so we'll play it safe and keep it". It does not mean "now it's decided, the article has to stay forever". For that, we have a result of "keep". — JIP | Talk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OldRightist, it HAS NOT come into general use. Trust me. Besides, there are 736 Google hits for Cablinasian without quotes. --Khoikhoi 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Either way, it's still a legit term. Khoikhoi, I don't want to get into some kind of battle over this issue, us wikipedians should work together not against each other. All I'm saying is that if you don't like the article in its current form simply edit it with new information. I'm trying to be cordial about this. -- OldRightist 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not legit. I've tryed editing it but you keep reverting me. --Khoikhoi 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no harm in letting this article stay, even if it was not come into use, some one might wanna know what this terms means and wikipedia should have it in it's db --digitalSurgeon 09:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily an endorsement...[edit]

OK, this article is pretty silly overall, but I just couldn't resist adding the Census data to give it a little bit of a grounding.--Pharos 06:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we renominate this for deletion??[edit]

I think it was clear that when Tiger Woods coined this term, he was joking about what a unique mix of ancestry he has. In other words, he coined the term specifically because this particular ethnic mix is not notable, at least not in an encyclopedic sense. It's not like there are Cablinasian support groups or anything, heh... Despite the census data, the number of people with this exact mix of ancestry has to be pretty small.

I think it should redirect to the article on Tiger Woods. Why? Because this term is only notable because of him. It's a term he uses to describe himself, not a general term that is used to describe other people.

My buddy's daughter is 1/2 Irish, 1/4 Korean, and 1/4 French. If she becomes famous, will there be a Wikipedia page for Frenkorish? No, that would be stupid. --Jaysweet 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of prod[edit]

I've decided to remove the prod tag, rather than delete the article. This is not a neologism, as the term was coined by Tiger Woods, a fairly notable individual, and not by the Wikipedia editor. Moreover, the term appears at Encarta. Proding an article that survived AfD is also generally bad style in my opinion. I would encourage anyone who still believes this should be deleted or merged based on lack of notability to go to AfD.--Carabinieri 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]