Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (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   redirect to stereotype. I haven't gone for a merge here, because of the amount of OR in here. But there may be something sourced that could be merged here or elsewhere, so retaining the edit history. Black Kite 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of autostereotypes by nation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-09
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.


 * Weak delete. Whoever made this list must be a troll or a racist.  The concept of national autostereotypes (or nations' self images) is probably better discussed in an article than in an add-your-own list inviting what are essentially chauvinistic statements like “Most A think they are B”. It should be difficult to find reputable sources to support such autostereotypes allegedly held by specific nations; and there probably are none for unsourced allegations in the stubby introduction such as “denying outsiders' ability to fully understand the concept” or alleged untranslatability claims.  Some content may be correct but unverifiable (I am of course never talking about statements like “Most A are B”, but about “Most A think they are B”), and “[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article” (from WP:Verifiability).  To summarize:  I'd like to see everything removed that cannot be sourced, and for any remaining content (e.g. this) to be moved to National autostereotype, or, since the term “autostereotype” seems to be uncommon in English (used in ), perhaps National self-image. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-09
 * Strong Delete unsourced, probably violates original research rule. its also simply useless as a WP article. If someday, 100 ethnic groups are surveyed and give a single autostereotype, sure, that would be good. America: freedom loving, independent, nation of immigrants, isolationist, melting pot, red and blue states, democrat vs republican, leader of the free world, world police, world scapegoat. which is it? would americans choose one of these over others, by a simple majority? wouldnt you have to list all over that got over a certain percent vote? I dont think ive ever heard of a poll asking this. and the poll itself would be biased, as it would have to use this kind of language, which is horribly biased, thus we could NOT report the results of the poll as fact, only whether the poll was done, and reactions to it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Pure case of original research. I tried to PROD this article previously, but it was contested. I'm glad to see it finally went to AFD, it was on my to-do list, but kept getting pushed back. Warrior  4321  02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't find the article offensive, however what little information it contains could be merged to autostereotype. Borock (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Autostereotype redirects to this article only :). It should be moved to stereotype instead. Warrior  4321  02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unoffensive but ultimately original research. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this could be rescued, with citations, in the ordinary course of editing. It even lists examples, such as sisu, and that too was saved from deletion.  Alternately, merge with stereotype. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that I understand what the author is aiming for. But it looks like the point is to try to link to other Wikipedia articles about concepts within one ethnic group that are impossible to explain to someone outside the group, or even to translate; cases where "You'd have to have been born in ______ to understand" (such as sehnsucht, which apparently you'd have to be born in Germany to understand).  I don't think it'll work, mostly because these are ideas that, by definition, can't be understood by a single editor.  Of course, maybe he or she really is a racist troll -- another concept that is impossible to explain.  Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * merge into Ethnic stereotype, which is a miserable stub. This is an awkwardly-titled article, but its content is perfectly legitimate and should have been merged into ethnic stereotype a long time ago. I am sorry, I can't believe the stuff that ends up on AfD recently. People should read up on what AfD is supposed to be about some time. The "rationale" given by doesn't hold any water even if interpreted charitably. I am not aware of any SOAPing or BATTLEGROUNDing going on at this article. Indeed, it has been completely neglected. The ethnic WP:BATTLE is not taking place at articles about ethnic nationalism, it is taking place at completely unrelated articles on ancient history. See Talk:Urartu and Talk:Illyrians to get a taste. Now see Talk:List of autostereotypes by nation and then explain how WP:SOAP applies here. --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh  00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge I am truly surprised by the depth of disdain for this article evidenced above; the article quite obviously has no axe to grind, although its information is deeply flawed (Merry old England instead of 'nation of animal lovers', 'nation of slackers', 'aloof' and 'suck at all sports except football and cricket') (thinking about it, this is probably some version of 'blame the messenger' or the phenomenon that policemen encounter when they attempt to break up wife-battering, where the wife joins the husband in beating off the perceived intruders; "no one gets to say that about my husband but me", sort of thing. So I will probably be a target for that as well, but 'oh well'). Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (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.