Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes 2

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Very clear consensus to delete. 29 Deletes, 12 Keeps. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic stereotypes

 * This isn't encyclopedic or neutral.
 * There is no way to verify most of the items listed.
 * Most of it is original research.
 * Many items are not really stereotypes: some of them are ethnic jokes and caricatures.
 * The last VfD vote had a 60 percent vote for delete. Neutralitytalk 17:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just realized that this is a recreation of an already deleted article (Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes), and as such would probably qualify for speedy deletion. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * So please do it! &asymp; jossi &asymp; 04:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 17:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * This re-nomination is sooner than I prefer, but if one actually reads the list, it is clear that it is NOT informative, as many line-items are not widely held, which means they are original research and/or unverifiable. Austrians "Annoy people by singing everywhere they go..."? Puh-leaze, I am in the US and I'm not aware of anyone who supports that view. Suggesting the list should be moved to 'US stereotypes' assigns the US even more of a small-mindedness than it deserves. Dutch "speak English better than British or Americans"? Sez whoo? Icelanders "...love to fight when intoxicated"? since when is that not true of a good percentage of any nationality? Native Americans "often live on reservations"--well duh, but is it by choice? WASP Americans "favor Gin & Tonics over other drinks, call them G&Ts"--my ancestors are all from the British Isles, except for one German and one Flemish, but give me vodka&7-up any day. And many have entries like "women have large breasts", "alcoholics", "smoke too much"--like any of these are really limited to certain nationalities/ethnicities, and to whatever extent it may be true isn't accurately represented in this list. Delete Niteowlneils 19:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherent POV, unverifiable, etc. Xezbeth  20:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I strongly supported deletion during the first VfD. I would like to see this useless and unverifiable article removed. Carrp | Talk 20:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV, unsourced, unverifiable. --BM 20:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even after removing the many things on the list that are not stereotypes, if any of this information was accurate, useful or interesting, we would have seen at least some of it added to each ethnicy/nationality entry.  While such a list may seem to have potential at first, I think the case against it is made more clear when one considers the prospect of having this information listed on each ethnicy/nationality entry.  It seems to me that a vote to keep is a vote for including its contents on respective ethnic/nation entries.  Please also consider the reasons why nothing on this list has its own entry.  I agree with all reasons listed by Neutrality.  --Paraphelion 21:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there's an excellent article to be made on this topic, and it would be fascinating to learn where all these got started, how they're perpetuated, how accurate they are (if at all), backlash against them, etc. If it's just a context-free list though, it isn't really helping anybody. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - agreed, this subject just can't be treated well in a list form. CDC   (talk)  04:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Neutrality. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I support having a list of ethnic stereotypes, but only if it is sourced and the stereotypes are attributed to the people who hold them. As it is now, it's nothing worth keeping. Tuf-Kat 04:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreeing with comments of Niteowlneils. Joyous 05:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A descriptive list of what stereotypes are out there is encyclopedic and maybe even useful. It is irrelevant whether we like them or not. However, the list should state where the respective prejudices are held. Martg76 09:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a case where that deleted tag would have been suitable. / u p p l a n d 12:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if an interesting list could be created on this subject this is not one. Jeltz talk  16:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This descriptive list of stereotypes is highly encyclopedic. Of course many of them are hateful. Shall we just put our heads in the sand and pretend that prejucice doesn't exist? Agree with Martg that the list should state where the respective prejudices are held. Can'tStandYa 14:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 22:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An article under this title could be very useful and scholarly; it could discuss the history of each stereotype, who holds or held it, and even what incidents it derives from. This article, by contrast, reads like a bunch of random surfers put it together... um, well, yes.  That said, keep for now in the hopes that someone completely rewrites it; you never know, they might find the examples useful by way of a sort of skeletal framework. - Mustafaa 01:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sure we can all agree this article is crap the way it is now. It's more important than usual to carefully verify everything so we make sure nobody's slipping in POV and original research, which is pretty easy to do with a list like this. It's a daunting task, but it's been done before. List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party, a VfD survivor with somewhat similar POV and verifiability pitfalls, now has a source for every entry. While that article's not exactly feature quality, it's a good example of how articles headed for the VfD scrapheap can be saved. /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  02:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That list has one very important feature that this list lacks - items deserving of their own entries. Having said that, that list is still pretty poor.  Have you looked at the references?  One reference on some obscure blog or one mention of a donation is all it seems to take to label an actor as linked to the Republican party. That's a pretty useless list, to be used as nothing more than a rumormill.  Respective articles on snopes.com would probably be more informative.  This list has even less potential. --Paraphelion 09:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wir muss nicht fergessen! Gott in Himmel!  If the Germans aren't allowed to forget their sins, why should the rest of you be allowed to forget yours?  This page needs a lot of work, but it hurts in all the right places. DocMengele 23:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Specatular double fallacy. You haven't shown that Germans aren't allowed to forget their sins.  Even if that is true, the accountability is not a result of this list, therefore this list would not be substantial as far as whether or not other race's sins are allowed to be forgotten.  By the way, what a lovely concept that you believe in, this 'sin of races'. --Paraphelion 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Current contents are unverified (and in my opinion, nonsense in many cases).  If someone does find evidence documenting specifically who held each of these beliefs and under what circumstances, that content would be far better discussed either in the article about the ethnicity or the article about the bigot.  This "list of" article conjoins topics that do not really relate to each other.  Rossami (talk) 07:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article written and titled like this is just asking for racist jokes to be added to it. Plus it's POV and not very verifiable. Radiant! 11:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just realized that this is a recreation of an already deleted article (Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes), and as such would probably qualify for speedy deletion. Radiant! 11:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) -
 * The original article in question was never deleted. So your argument doesn't really hold any water. 155.84.57.253, 28 Feb 2005


 * Delete. If there's an encyclopedia article hiding in here, I can't find it.  If there is something encyclopedic to be written on this topic, let someone start with a nice clean redlink.  Discussion of stereotypes may well belong in the articles of the nationalities and ethnicities involved, though I'm concerned about the seven kinds of flamewar that's going to create.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, original research, un-verifiable, un-encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk)  21:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Disliking content is no reason to delete valid information. --Gene_poole 21:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article might be encyclopedic if it documented the stereotypes, analysed them, debunked them if necessary, examined their origins, etc. This doesn't, so it isn't.  Miss Pippa 23:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. You have got to be kidding. An article ABOUT Ethnic stereotypes, sure, with well-chosen examples, but this? --Calton 00:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article doesn't do what it should. --nixie 02:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then edit it and keep it. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 04:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and fast. Piece of garbage, inherent POV. An insult. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 04:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do hope this gets deleted this time.  Inherently NPOV and thoroughly unencyclopedic. Indrian 04:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is junk. I don't think we would lose anything by deleting it. That said, I could imagine a well-researched, well-documented article on the topic. I'd be open to someone laying down the ground rules for such an article. Guess I'm pretty much with TenOfAllTrades on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, 34 separate "keep" votes clocked up in 19 minutes by The Recycling Troll!, and this from a user who only registered yesterday! Could this be the often-threatened Keepbot, that somebody has finally created? Why is wikipedia never fast enough for me to do stuff at that rate? Bishonen | Talk 23:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this user has been around longer than yesterday, however your suspicions are still quite understandable. --Paraphelion 00:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this user has been around for a few months, but most of its edits appear to be "Keep" votes on VfDs, rarely with any comment. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread the contribs, but, well, yeah! Bishonen | Talk 06:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lists of ethnic slurs, political epithets, etc, are already enough work to keep editors busy. There is no purpose served by this article. -Willmcw 19:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. Reasons listed.-LtNOWIS 21:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, can we please finally get rid of this pernicious thing? Bishonen | Talk 23:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Antandrus 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research; I don't think a list like this has much hope of being anything but inherent POV. --MPerel( talk 00:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV topic.  Kaibabsquirrel 02:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just like last time, only more so. Unlike the previous vfd survivor List of ethnic slurs, the information here has no merit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that includes lists of definitions. Not that it's up for a vote now, but that really should have applied to List of ethnic slurs too. --iMb~Mw 09:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --taviso 11:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, the article was already voted on and kept, propose speedy delisting. This is VfD vandalism at its best. Grue 11:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The result was not keep; there was no consensus. I count 24 deletes and 17 keeps (of various forms).  Relisting is perfectly kosher. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's strange because there is "The result of the debate was KEEP" at the top of the old VfD page. That was the admin's decision, probably based on the fact that many of those who voted delete aren't familiar with the deletion policy (which doesn't list POV/lack of sources as the reason for deletion). Grue 12:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a deletion policy, not a deletion rule. It rather sounds to me like you're unclear on the difference between policy and rule, and don't seem to understand that the deletion policy isn't some sort of constitution that VfD decisions are required to adhere to: what the VfD voters decide -- and how the admins interpret them -- is policy, no matter what legalistic rule-to-the-letter that Wikilawyers attempt. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with User:Neutrality.-gadfium 19:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can't see how this can be POV, when it's clearly stated in the article that these are stereotypes and not facts. A useful cultural record - of course, by no means complete or perfect.Drw25 23:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly unverifiable junk, not encyclopedic. --Bjarki 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a nice cultural reference.  And I can't find anything else like it on the web.  Cow 15:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's mostly made up, and a lot of these aren't commonly held, so what's the point of keeping it?--Nomadicworld

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.