Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Common phrases based on stereotypes
This was proposed for deletion with the reason given "unverified original research" by Doc glasgow, however I don't think PROD is suitable in this case. Another possible reason for would be "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". No actual opinion from me ATM. Kappa 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of ethnic slurs Ruby 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you'd want to add a whole lot of unreferenced material to List of ethnic slurs? Why? How would that improve that article?--Doc ask?  08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can verify more than a few of these having heard them frequently while growing up in the South. This article should be kept or worst case merged. edw
 * Comment In principle, it's different from Ethnic Slurs - see e.g. the entry Bible thumper.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Endomion, else Keep. --  Wikipedical 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly different from ethnic slurs.  A phrase based on a stereotype is not necessarily an ethnic slur (example: "luck of the Irish"), and an ethnic slur is not necessarily a phrase based on a stereotype (example: "whitey").  Many terms would qualify for both lists, though.   dbtfz talk 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep--Weak bad 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - rebuild it with references if you like. ATM nothing is referenced, and it is just a target for racist additions. If this survives, I intend to remove all unreferenced assertions, which as it stands will leave it blank. --Doc ask?  08:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've referenced Bible thumper which is in everyday use and which is not mergeable into Ethnic slurs Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely unreferenced. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. ergot 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and merge. A lot of these are unsourced and unverified.  Having said that, like someone mentioned above, I have heard many of these used as "you must be of (x) race/ethnicity/group/etc. to use this otherwise you're racist."  I suppose that makes it notable if merged into List of ethnic slurs, but I'm not really sure how these could play out on their own.  Otherwise, delete.--み使い Mitsukai 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced, and unverifiable. Quite a few are made up or completely non-notable. This article lacks quality and has a low potential of being quality, while overlapping the already existing List of ethnic slurs. There are already enough categories and lists, rendering this redundant. -- Jay  (Reply)  21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list seems to be relevant if its entries can be proved. Anthony Appleyard 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Different from Ethnic Slurs. Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. Overlap doesn't imply duplication. -AKMask 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is—or at least could be—a very useful source of information, e.g. for people who want to avoid using expressions that are based on stereotypes. It has been established, I think, that it is distinct from List of ethnic slurs.  Given the sensitive nature of the topic, however, I think each entry should be required to have at least one respectable reference associated with it: a source that verifies that the phrase is or has been in reasonably wide use in some community and is indeed based on a stereotype.  Any phrase not satisfying this criterion should be removed from the list.  That's my opinion, anyway.   dbtfz talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While that sounds like a great idea, this isn't really something that gets reported around in the media. Slang for Eskimos and Aleuts is 'Tundra-monkeys'... sucking on a can with big wet lips is called 'nigger-lipping'. Both of those are based on steotypes (igloos and big lips respectivly) and yet I have a hard time seeing a newspaper print either of those. -AKMask 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content must be verifiable. If we can't find a (respectable) reference to verify a phrase, it is too obscure (perhaps something someone made up in school one day) and should be excluded.   dbtfz talk 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're quite right when it comes to needing to be verifiable. I was just pointing out that your use of the word respectable in the original suggestion. I doubt we'll find the New York Times approved list. -AKMask 03:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By "respectable" I just meant "serious, and more than 3 people have read it"—not necessarily the New York Times. : )   dbtfz talk 03:49, 17 February 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.