Deletion of Southern California Chinatowns

Comment: I'm against the destruction of the English language, and ''nouveau'' word-uses meant to advance a campaign; the campaign being to brand what are properly styled ethnoburbs with a label that has a very specific history and locational context in North American culture.  I'm not against the destruction of the term "Southern California Chinatowns" so long as it's about ''ACTUAL CHINATOWNS''.  You seem totally disinterested in the historical, ''REAL'', Chinatowns that have a history and an identity and ''went by that name'' - but are insistent that new commercial and settlement colonies are Chinatowns because you took this one author, added context from another, referenced the locations of some stores, and ignored the fact that Monterey Park does not promote or identify itself ''as a Chinatown''.  "Someone in Canada" is from a place, and more than one place, where Chinatowns are and were historical realities, and where there is also widespread new-Chinese settlement/commerce. Only one of the many places they predominate in is "Chinatown".  ''ONLY ONE''.  Get it? Chinatown is a ''name'', and a particular type of commercial/cultural concentration ''and it doesn't include suburban strip developments or tract housing''.  Richmond makes a point of not calling Golden Village "Chinatown" (there had been a historic Chinatown, at least one, in Steveston, British Columbia|Steveston at Richmond's SW tip, however.  Both of my home towns had Chinatowns Mission, British Columbia|Mission and Lillooet, British Columbia|Lillooet, and so did New Westminster where I've also lived, and here in Penticton there was Shanghai Alley, which is one of the "variant names" Chinatowns in their heyday were called.  Victoria and Vancouver still have Chinatowns, both of which I'm familiar with; half a dozen major neighbourhoods, commercial and residential, I can think of in Vanouver (City of Vancouver) alone meet your criteria of "waht constitutes a Chinatown", as do vast areas of Richmond, some of Surrey and Coquitlam, and increasingly in the Fraser Valley towns and in Kelowna.  But none of the new "concentrations" are called Chinatown, nor would anybody, including the businesses and residents who work and live in them, would think to either.  Chinatown is a place, an identity.  Not a rebranding campaign.  The IP user you accused of being a sockpuppet took out stuff,as I had before him, which had nothing to do with Chinatowns, it had to do with where Chinese businesses and facilities were; Temple Park is cited only by a bridal shop, and the section seems to exist ''to promote'' that bridal "district" seems important enough for you to restore that you insult the people trying to take it out as both  and pam, which is exactly what it is.  "Someone in Canada" tried to turn this article into what its title says it's about, and you reversed that, screaming "vandalism", and then went back on your campaign of expanding this article with things that don't have to do with anywhere named Chinatown, or which anybody considers a Chinatown (unless they subscribe to your view that you can reinvent words as you please - highly ironic given your habit of throwing dictionary definitions at me when you see words that make you uncomfortable and claim I'm not using them right).  I use English just fine myself...."Someone in Canada" could deal with an article that's about the REAL historical Chinatowns in Southern California, and could ''tolerate'' Chinese commercial and residential areas in Southern California, by whatever terminology "concentrations", "districts", "enclaves" etc.  But a bridal shop, that's not an enclave, whatever were you thinking?  Monterey Park itself, LA County, and the State of California do not call Monterey Park a Chinatown, nor Temple City.  Yet you insist that they ''are'', because you've decided your new meaning for the word is how it is, and everybody else is holding you back etc etc.  Have a good read also at , which your friend Obfucious posted at the AfD on the now-deleted "Chinatown patterns in North America" article, which was exactly the kind of stuff you've been building here - only repeated...and you wanted to add it to the Chinatown, LA article.....but you just don't grasp  or ynth or ndue.  Calling me names is no solution for your lack of comprehension of these
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:S||WP:PSTS||WP:OR||WP:S||WP:U)

Comment: Let's get out of this slanging match and impugning motives; let's get to work on the article. I have just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_California_Chinatowns&diff=prev&oldid=396106443 taken out a chunk of |OR, and now would challenge the nom to analyse in detail, section by section, what of the remaining sourced information needs to go because it is synthesis or other OR. That should be an easy job, because much of it has sources apposed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSouthern_California_Chinatowns&action=historysubmit&diff=395780497&oldid=395738378 attempt to close this discussion yourself is one of the most extreme examples of gall and wiki-arrogance I've ever seen, and a rather vulgar display of wn, as are your complaints that you want to "edit it in peace" (meaning you want the right to keep on building your original research empire).  Add on top of that your dumping a definition of "confabulation" in the middle of a discussion on my talkpage about a completely different topic, in reply to a now-confused editor who thought you were responding to him......talk about bad karma
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: re your comment ''"Simply, I am quite confident in my knowledge and education including "Surburban Chinatowns" and refuse to be driven away."''  You are not a reliable source (see  and it's already clear that you're not a verifiable source  because you're constantly making original research/synth conclusions and expansions.  YOUR definition/meaning of Suburban Chinatown does not have a consensus, and that you will "not be driven away" indicates your stubbornness and intent to keep on with your essay-writing/travelogue campaign.  You've been playing wn with this article since you started expanding it, and have ignored regular content guidelines and run willy-nilly in writing more and more OR and Synth.  A consensus may not be reached here, but these don't run on consensus, they are decided (properly) on what's right and what's wrong.  And your claim that places that aren't called Chinatown ''should be called Chinatowns because you think so'' just doesn't wash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:VS||WP:O)