This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment .
Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits
Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.
My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.
I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.
--Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets about 54000 Gooogles, but it is readily apparent that few of them apply. Since this and the following VfD are closely related, it is germane to observe that "Cultural poisoning" -aunk -wikipedia gets only 150 unique Google hits. "star model" "Cultural poisoning" gets a single hit. "Cultural health" "Cultural literacy" -aunk -wikipedia gets gets 59 hits. "Cultural poisoning" "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets 13 Googles. Since all these terms must be related from this article's perspective, I am concerned that the usages here may well be original research. Further, looking through the Google hits, at least some of them are from non-authoritative web fora and in some cases links to the apparently personal site(s) of the author. Looking through the first few pages of Google hits, and judging by their summaries, I found this which is unconvincing. By way of reference to Cultural poisoning, listed below, Amazon has this which is, as the nominator implies, by Aunk. The question is then, does an article about an author's theory qualify as original research when the same author has a published text containing that theory? It is published by "Writers Club Press", which "publishes on demand" [1] so in this case, there is no independent publication. By way of defence, I see some references at the bottom of the article. However, and this is important, they are not referenced in the text and carry little weight with me as a result since they are not used to support the text. The "See Also" section can be as long as it likes, without mitigating original research. All of which leads me to a delete. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research, of the "Here's what I thought after reading these books" variety. Gazpacho 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup. The author's view is very un-encyclopediac, but the term "Cultural health" is an accepted one in modern Human Geography studies. Instead of flat-out deleting the article, let's get some good writers in there to tidy it up a bit. --Frag 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice, if someone wants to come back and re-write the article. It may be a viable term to have an article on. However, I can't see that there is anything here that wouldn't have to be completely re-written. Alternatively, it could be pared down to a tiny stub, and re-written from that. So I'll put "heavy cleanup" as a secondary vote if some sort of consensus needs to be made. --Icelight 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup per Frag. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, The phrase cultural health is not something new. Putting it in google gets 45,000,000 hits. Millions of people in America are talking about this topic. The article stub needs work to be encyclopedic but the topic is encyclopedic. Someone from the Asian American community at some point in time, will reflect their communities understanding of cultural health. The medical community will do the same. This is a big discussion with many "experts" and the article will grow.
--Aunk 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with Aunk's assessment of the Google test results regarding Cultural health. The 45m figure is for the words seperately, not as a quoted phrase. The search "cultural health" -"health care" -"health club" -nurses -diseases -medical -aunk , gives 17,900 hits, none of which (that I could find) are using the term in the sense this article uses it. Bgeer 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although I am not familiar with this term and the author seems to have written it from a POV, sources are cited although not neccessarily reliable ie Pat Buchanan. I would vote to keep even a decent stub given the currency of the term but would vote to delete this. Capitalistroadster 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "original" research (which isn't even original. See eugenics) from a pathetic pseudo-intellectual that can barely even spell (Is english even your first language?) and claims ideas that are decades, even centuries old, as his own. --TheDoober 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Tearlach 16:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While this term may be used, its certainly not in this context. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. From the discussion above, it is clear that this subject has the potential to have a good, unbiased, article written about it, but the current article is so not that article. I suppose you could do a massive cleanup on it, but that would probably amount to a complete re-write. Might as well just nuke it now, and if somebody wants to write the real article, they can go ahead and do that at some point in the future. The alternative would be to Reduce this to a stub, which I wouldn't object to, but don't really think it's the right strategy. --RoySmith 00:37, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.