Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body-type preferences among White and Black people (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Body-type preferences among White and Black people


The article contains original research, and much of it can be of offensive nature to the person reading. Many sentences start with 'Blacks' or 'whites', and on the talk page, some people find this article outrageous and unencyclopedic. Also, article does not make much sense, a lot of it seems to be POV, and it doesn't have sources for many of the statements. At least a major re-write is in order, if not a deletion.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See also: first AfD discussion. --- RockMFR 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:OR. Cited works do not appear to support the material in the article - lack of inline citations makes it very difficult to check, of course.  QuiteUnusual 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Kavadi carrier 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. -- The Anome 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gag me with an OR. --Ling.Nut 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a trend of people wanting to delete "race-based" articles out of a seeming reluctance to talk about race at all (which is also bad, since Wikipedia is not censored), I'm also going to take a look at some of the sources cited, which happens far too rarely here. The online link provided has nothing talking about body type preferences, it's just a general overview of there seemingly being a race-based "hierarchy" in interracial relationships, one for women and one for men.  The Qualitative Report article is more in line with the title of this one, but it only notes body-image problems for women.  The BioSci article does not strictly involve "white" women (it involves Arab women, but that is not the whole of "white").  The sex roles journal article is decent in this regard, but I don't think that the article contents are a good summary of the article.  Now.  I think that this is a poor article, and has way too many weasel words (see how many times the word "researchers" is used in the article), but the Sex roles article notes that most of the studies on attractiveness tend to place the "Anglo American" (their words) viewpoint as the default one and that race and culture do modify these characteristics.  So.  My opinion is to delete this article, take the references and integrate them into a body type preferences article of some sort (I'm guessing one is already here.)  ColourBurst 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I'm surprised it didn't get deleted the first time. RobJ1981 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR essay. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Contains original research. Additionally it seems to lack any intellectual or academic merit whatsoever. Xdenizen 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In an article which makes controvrsial claims, having a list of uncited references at the end is unacceptable. Use inline cites to footnote claims to pages of the references. I, along with Sir Mixalot in "Baby Got Back," expect that there are some kind of race-based differences in body shape preferences for mates. But the article smacks of OR due to the lack of specific references. If the editors who put in claims know where they found them, then cite the references at the point in the text where they are made. This reads like a poorly written research paper from a freshman college course in sociology.Edison 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I like big butts and I cannot lie. SchmuckyTheCat 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment is there another reason you can put about keeping the article?  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI see all delete votes state this is Original Research. None of them refute that this, among other cited references, doesn't back up the article: Linda A. Jackson and Olivia D. McGill. "Body type preferences and body characteristics associated with attractive and unattractive bodies by African Americans and Anglo Americans." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Sep. 1996, 35(5/6):295-307. SchmuckyTheCat 05:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOR. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have recently been doing research on the subject and I find that most of the material in this article is in fact refrenceable. Alot of the information coincides with the information mentioned in the books. However, one major chance needs to be made, that is to rename the article to "Body Image between Cultures" and to diversify to apply to various cultures. I would be willing to work on the article, but it would have to wait at least six weeks simply due to the sheer work load I am facing at the moment. Do not delete the article, wait for revision. I have seen significantly worse articles than this that did not get nearly as much attention. I believe that this is mainly due to the race issue. That is why I suggest renaming the article and broadening the content to apply to other cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.176.238 (talk • contribs) (moved from top of page - please make new comments at the bottom and sign with ~ . Thanks! Kavadi carrier 02:01, 9 November 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.