Talk:Ah beng

202.156.6.54 13:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Notices

This article needs to be cleaned up (better layout) and edited so that it meets WP:NPOV. [1] PJM 20:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Failed AFD

This article's AFD debate did not get consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I advocated for Keep but there is an interesting question here, I think... if a term can be shown to exist and can be shown to describe a large enough segment of the population (or large enough category of things) to be culturally significant (by whatever metric), using verifiable sources, but no verifiable source can be found that gives precise, citable information on the meaning or usage patterns, is the term worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? if so, should the article merely give pointers to unverifiable sources (with a warning that they are such), and let the reader draw their own conclusion, or should the editors do the best they can to define it? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and especially not the Urban Dictionary so merely giving a definition for a slang term is not enough to make an encyclopedic article. Some significance or usage from other articles is necessary too, at least. (contrast this article about a pejorative term with the article nigger in which discussion of the long term usage and effects of the term is given, making it much more than just a definition.) ++Lar 15:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. It would not end up as a long dictionary definition. Mandel 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Research

If anyone has access to it, there was an Ah beng/Ah lian feature on straits times on Dec 7, 1997. Might be helpful in editing this article but I'm not sure how to go about doing it.

• The template that you need is Template:citenews. Uncle G 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Straits Times back issues require paid subscription. I'm not sure I'm willing to pay the subscription fee to be able to find which issue to cite, (in order to have a valid URL for the template) and even if I (or someone else) did, if no one else could go look it up without also paying, wouldn't that make it unverifiable nevertheless because you'd have to take the word of the person who paid that the article exists? I'm not clear how to use/reference pay sources, in general. Pointers to policy in that area gladly accepted. For what it is worth, however, doing this search gives (as the third hit) this google cache entry, and (as the fourth hit) this google cache entry. Both entries purport to be from the online edition of ST, and assert ST copyright at the bottom. Seems to establish that the word exists, and further that the meaning is at least roughly as outlined in the article and further, that it's a notable and culturally significant term, at least in S'pore (as I asserted in my personal testimony). Hope that helps. Are CACHE hits citable using that template? ++Lar 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)