Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film roles based on ethnic 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of film roles based on ethnic stereotypes
Listcruft. Vague and indiscriminate collection of stereotypes, with no actual connection to film offered. wikipediatrix 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research without the research, as far as I can tell. Gazpacho 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unusable listcruft, original research, unreferenced. J I P  | Talk 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article does not cite reliable sources. I'll change my opinion if some are added. WilyD 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, no citations. HighInBC 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  yet more listcruft M  a  rtinp23  13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR Cynical 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, mish-mash of archetypes, no criteria, context or explanation.--Nydas 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a few weeks ago I merged this article with list of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes. What I should have done was put both articles up for AfD. This list is an unmanageable, unverifiable pile of useless OR. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete offensive OR. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete  per all the reasons listed above.--Derco 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Essentially POV. Konman72 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP is not censored. If people are concerned about unverified entries, why not place a {fact} tag next to them instead of nominating it for deletion? The information in the article is, I believe, mostly genuine, it simply needs to be verified. --Tess Tickle 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Who said that WP should be censored? "it simply needs to be verified." True, I guess, but the verify tag has been there for a while and no one seems interested in adding sources.  AND I brought this issue up on the discussion page, and no one seems interested in adding sources.  Adding individual fact tags to every entry would be redundant.  And besides, who gets to define what the criteria is for being a stock film role?  There's no way this can be defined, really.  This list is a breeding ground for original research, and it always will be.--Derco 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ya see, the problem is, that not everyone is one wikipeadia eery spare minute of every day. Some people don't sign in for months at a time. If left alone, the article would, I believe, contain sufficient refererences for it to warrant inclusion in time. --Tess Tickle 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Could be a good drinking game to play, to think up any role which could be construed as a racial stereotype, but wiki is not WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per most of the above. KleenupKrew 04:01, 19 August 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.