Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-Tagalog Philippines

A biased, anti-Tagalog fork of Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, a wikiproject that covers all English Wikipedia articles relating to the Philippines. Starczamora (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:POINT and WP:NPA. See the creators user's page.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Having members in its roster means that it is a valid notice board and its aim is supported by a number of wikipedia users. Deleting the notice board would prove that certain users are appropriating articles related to the Philippines in wikipedia for themselves. Deleting may even support the notion of the existence of prejudice of Tagalogs against Non-Tagalog Filipinos. Azumizoku (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE...This recently-created account could be a sockpuppet of User:Arikasikis, the original author of this miscellany. Starczamora (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, this is quite suspicious. Do you people want me to ask for a check user query? -- Felipe Aira 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As redundant since Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines is not a regional notice board for Tagalog users. Both "boards" are covering Philippines related topics and use English as the primary language of communication, definitely there is an overlap. If there is significant difference between the two, I might consider keep like if this new "board" will not use English or cover a subset of the topic or different topic altogether. --bluemask ^(talk) 07:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete No use. Improve the main first before creating something (something essential of course). --Efe (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It violates the following Wikipedia policies as follows:
• WP:POINT - it's a response to the supposed Tagalog-centric contributions from Filipino Wikipedians.
• WP:NPA - unsubstantiated accusation on Filipino Wikipedians.
• WP:AGF - assumes that Filipino Wikipedians follow one certain viewpoint.
• WP:SOAP - advocating a point of view that excludes non-Tagalog viewpoints.
• If the creator of this regional noticeboard is having problems, it is suggested that he works on building consensus. --Chris S. (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It is also noted that the most wanted article in this board is Kingfisher School of Business and Finance, and not any other Philippine-related articles outside of the Tagalog regions. Starczamora (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete and a Very Strong Delete First, WP:TAMBAY is not Tagalog-centric, it's Anglo-centric; there's no need for a clone of the original. Second, why should Tagalog be opposed? If this is the case about Imperial Manila, this is not the place to do this. That user who so hates Tagalog, already has his Anti-Tagalog Coalition, what's next an Anti-Tagalog Wikia. -- Felipe Aira 09:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per redundancy †Bloodpack† 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. According to the creator, the main purpose is countering Tagalog-centric information related to the Philippines within Wikipedia, probably a sub-project for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. WP:TAMBAY has a large scope of work and perhaps neglecting articles with Tagalog-bias or Manila-centric information in it. Probably the creator of this project wants to have a task force for balancing Philippine-related articles to conform worldwide view. If this is the purpose then I think that we should keep it and make it as a sister project of WP:TAMBAY otherwise delete. I hope also that a non-Filipino admin would close this debate to avoid the impression that there is a prejudice of Tagalogs against non-Tagalogs. --Jojit (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• How about moving the subproject under WP:TAMBAY to counter bias or focus on a subset of Philippines-related topics like Pangasinan-related topics or Mindanao-related topics? Countering systematic bias must also be a focus of the Philippines-related topics regional notice board. --bluemask ^(talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's a better idea. --Jojit (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• The fact that the author only included Kingfisher School of Business and Finance as a most-wanted article makes it dubious in itself. Had the author included the likes of Eskaya or other out of Manila articles included in FA, GA, and DYK, it would have been fine but still subject to debate. Starczamora (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I still assume good faith and probably that the school is just for starters. Take note that school is located outside of Manila or the Tagalog region. --Jojit (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Also, don't you think that the board's complete elimination of Tagalog is also a case of systemic bias? Starczamora (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think they want to eliminate Tagalog because Tagalogs are welcome in that project. I think that we should talk to these guys to resolve any misunderstandings about WP:TAMBAY. --Jojit (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Or guy. For all we know, those members are merely sockpuppets of the author. Starczamora (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• If ever that Tambayan Philippines is a sort of a motivator or supporter for widespread Tagalog bias and Imperial Manila, which I believe to be absolutely not, then there should be a reform in the system. Splitting a fork project would bring nothing but chaos, the one undoing the other's edit, since one views it to be Tagalog-centric. The Coalition is useless. Damning Tagalog, and forcing it to die is not the way to promote poorly represented minorities. -- Felipe Aira 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence that there is a problem about Tagalog-ism in the English Wikipedia that this regional noticeboard is supposed to solve. --seav (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as apparent POV fork. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: The creator of this page previously invited other Filipino Wikipedians to include themselves in :Category:Coalition Against Tagalog Imperialism, with a matching userbox to boot. It seems this user has a vendetta against Tagalogs in general. --Howard the Duck 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment actually we first found "his" article on the Tagalog Wikipedia. We then proceeded to nominate it in the English Wikipedia. I believe CATI and this anti-Tagalog board sprung up after that. It seems that the user is just not happy that his article was deleted rather than hating Tagalogs in general--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• It is possible. But personnally, I think it's only a coincidence. It just happens that most Filipino Wikipedians are Tagalogs, and that the Tagalog Wikipedia is the most active Philippine Wikipedia. It really seems that this user hates the Tagalog language and/or the Tagalogs themselves since he feels that his language is being oppressed by Tagalog. -- Felipe Aira 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Actually the Cebuano Wikipedia has more articles but they're mostly French communes. --Howard the Duck 08:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• To clarify, what I meant there by saying "most active" is by actually having the most active community, since more than 25,000 of the 33,000+articled Cebuano Wikipedia are stubs. That's why in meta their "depth" (edits per page and some other variables) in the list of Wikipedias is 0. -- Felipe Aira 11:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This will only further divide us. But this should serve as a reminder to the Tagalog-feeling superior-wikipedians, the non-Tagalog-feeling inferior-wikipedians, the Tagalog-dominated Filipino wikipedians, and the confused Filipinos of a reality that is very obvious and that even manifests itself in the English wikipedia. How many times have we debated on what Filipino is on the Filipino Language article, for example? How many times have you Filipino wikipedians who are Tagalogs have decided or reached a consensus (based on your "subconscious" Tagalog perspective - admit it or not) because you have the most number of members among Filipino wikipedians? True, you have the most number of contributions, but do you really represent the entire Filipino perspective? Have we all been effective in presenting the other sides of the coin in our Philippine-related articles? Why do anti-Tagalog sentiments manifest in Wikipedia? Isn't it time to form a "coalition" group of editors among yourselves who will ensure that Philippine-related articles are neutral and aren't only presented in the Tagalog or Metro Manila's perspective? I wish Wikipedia Tambayan Philippines would just be renamed to Wikipedia Philippines. That way, it would be neutral and I would, once again, have a good reason to come back to the regional notice board for Philippine-related articles. Got the picture? --Weekeejames (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why not rename it to Hangout Philippines? Right, "U.S. CENTRISMZ". Even "Philippines" is Spanish POV. Why not "Wikipedia:The islands north of Malaysia and Indonesia but south of Taiwan"? --Howard the Duck 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Context and perspective are two different notions often mistaken to be one and the same. Go figure! --Weekeejames (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think renaming the project is not necessary. We just have to make a sub-project that will counter systemic bias in Wikipedia against Tagalogs and non-Tagalogs. --Jojit (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jojit. In fact, I just "wish" and am not really going for it or fighting for the renaming of the "Tambayan" project. I was only pointing out the reality that manifests itself even in the name "Tambayan" Philippines. Under what context can the word "tambayan" represent the entire Philippines and the articles relating to it and under whose point of view? As I look at it, the Wikipedia:Non-Tagalog Philippines has valid and legitimate reasons to exist althought I would deny its existence if it would serve as an added reason for further divisions among Filipino wikipedians. In other words, Wikipedia:Non-Tagalog Philippines has valid reasons to exist just as a Wikipedia:Philippnes project also has valid reasons because after all, "Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines" does not sound/seem neutral at all. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I am now attempted to vote for merge Wikipedia:Non-Tagalog Philippines to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and rename the merged projects as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philippines. Is the title neutral enough? --bluemask ^(talk) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well, the author of the POV fork should say something about it. Starczamora (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• For what it's worth Tagalogs and non-Tagalogs have co-existed here and I haven't known any divisions. If the lengthly and useless discussion about the Filipino language is the culprit, it's a pretty lame excuse for a conflict. --Howard the Duck 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also, I would like to request our "anti-Tagalog" Wikipedians to show PROOF that there is such a thing as Tagalog-imperialism on ENGLISH Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• This goes beyond what the antis think. A sub-project to review articles that have or suspected to have systemic bias is a part of a regional notice board regardless if there is a proof or not. --Jojit (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• But wouldn't that lead to its own systematic bias? Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere and this "Wikiproject" is a bad-faith and pointy creation so this should be deleted as per WP:SNOW. --Howard the Duck 02:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nope. It wouldn't lead to systemic bias because it would be a collaborative effort to counter the bias. --Jojit (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• A collaborative effort to counter the bias that doesn't even exist will lead to bias. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• If that is your belief, I respect it. --Jojit (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

: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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.