Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex crimes against Asian women


 * 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 keep and rename. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex crimes against Asian women
Not encyclopaedic; even the originator of this article regards it as questionable (see talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownlee (talk • contribs)


 * Keep - How is it not encyclopedic? Hong Qi Gong 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you opposing? Deletion of the article or the article itself?  It's either delete or keep. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A collection of five newspaper clippings cannot remotely be described as encyclopedic. Fan1967 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. The introduction doesn't reference "Some Asian Americans point to the racial stereotyping of Asian women as a driving force behind sex crimes targeting them."  I can't say whether this is a prevalent theory or a collection of newstories that struck some Wikipedia editors as being similar.  Also if kept that title should be changed to say "Asian American."  Otherwise it will be a very large article, including the Japanese assaults against Chinese populations during World War II. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per new evidence that actually ties some of the case studies here together. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks of sources. --Ter e nce Ong 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a few things:
 * A quote in the article from YaleDailyNews
 * An external links section with two sources linked
 * A stub to indicate that the article needs expansion
 * Also, I think it would be a good idea to rename the article "Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States".
 * --Hong Qi Gong
 * Keep per HongQiGong. The references he added do consider it a trend. The article has room for improvement, concentrating more on the trend and less on the individual crimes. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There may be room for an article, based on the report, though a better source than a college paper would be nice. The individual reports have no value in an encyclopedic article. Total sexual assaults has been estimated at 200K per year in the US. Five selected incidents don't mean anything. Fan1967 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, five individual incidents don't mean much. That's why we need to expand and add more incidents.  Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you need to forget the individual incidents and provide statistics. Fan1967 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, the article that says Asian women are disproportionally targeted does not provide a single supporting reference for that assertion and the authors have no apparent expertise in the area of sex crimes or statistics. Instead, they are reporting on something discussed in a Asian-American women's organization meeting. -- Kjkolb 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if any users have any expertise on the subject matter, they'd have to rely on sources like the Asian American woman's organisation that was linked. Providing your own insight into the subject matter would violate No_original_research.  In other words, we must use other sources.  Hong Qi Gong 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But you need unbiased professional sources. An Asian women's organization says sexual assault is a special problem for Asian women? Not surprising. Try asking a Latina women's organization or an African-American women's organization. What would their response be? Fan1967 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's really no such thing as an unbiased source of information, especially when you're talking about something that is controversial. What makes an article conform to NPOV is the presentation of opposing points of view.  Hence, the stub I added in request of expansion of the article.  The lack of an opposing view does not entail deletion of an article, it entails the inclusion of said opposing view into the article.  Hong Qi Gong 06:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that a POV article is OK, as long as you ask for opposing views. Sorry, that's not good enough. The absolute bare minimum required is that you must provide Verification from a Reliable Source to support the contentions in your article, and you have not done so. You have a handful of anecdotal incidents with nothing to indicate that they are related or are part of any particular pattern or trend. Fan1967 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. That is not what I'm suggesting.  I'm suggesting that the article is far from being in a finished state.  That is why it needs expansion.  That is why it needs more sources, especially ones with opposing views.  And I have provided two sources already that claim that there is some trends in sex crimes against Asian women.  Hong Qi Gong 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An Asian women's group and a college paper. Please review Wikipedia's standards on Reliable Sources. - Fan1967 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposal. michael <span
 * Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. An important topic which most people are unaware of. As long as it is accurate and don't misrepresent, it's worth keeping. --Vsion 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: not that these crimes are not horrible but here one of the sources for one of the racially motivation crimes:
 * “There is no evidence to suggest that the offender, Richard Anderson, acted on any bias against Lili Wang because of her race,” Daily said. “And this has come after an investigation by our department, the State Bureau of Investigation and the Deputy Attorney’s Office of Wake County.”
 * Does it all boil down to figuring out what is in someone's mind? Seems difficult to maintain. --MarsRover 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to decide what it boils down to, it's the job of the sources that we cite. Hong Qi Gong 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge  into hate crimes. Wikipedia should only have a separate article on theories that are already notable.  It is not a place to develop theories (which is what this article appears to do). --JChap 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not a delete vote then. Deletion does not allow the content to be reproduced anywhere in any form. At any rate, there are in fact academic theories in Asian American studies on this, e.g., --Wzhao553 06:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - For those of you who want to delete the article because you think it's POV - you need to check Deletion. POV is not criteria for deletion.  Otherwise, all those controversial topics that people think are POV are in danger of deletion.  Iraq War, anyone?  The proposed solution for a POV article is to clean it up and make it NPOV.  And having said that, I've added the  tag to the page.  Hong Qi Gong 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added the U.S. Justice Department as a source of opposing view. Like I've said, this article needs expansion and additional sources, not deletion.  Hong Qi Gong 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So the only reliable source you have is an opposing view? I really don't see that helping your argument. Fan1967 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because you keep ignoring the fact that the article needs expansion. That's why I put a stub at the bottom of the article.  Once again, POV is not a criteria for deletion.  The article needs expansion, not deletion.  Hong Qi Gong 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't produced anything to show that it's a valid basis for an article to begin with. Asking for expansion doesn't help in that area. Fan1967 17:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This article could be includible if it discussed (i) a theory or school of thought in the academic community on which papers had been published or (ii) a trend that is widely acknowledged as a trend (and not just a collection of crimes) in major news media. The article does not discuss either of these.  It's not that what the article says is invalid, it's just not encyclopedic. --JChap 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment:The article in its current state is a brief introduction followed by a list of sex crimes against Asian women. It has a  tag inviting people to add to the list.  This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an invitation to the police blotter from hell. --JChap 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was a nice idea but as there is no statistical evidence that Asian women are at greater risk (indeed Asians are at LEAST risk for violent crimes compared to other ethnic groups in the US), so it seems like a hodgepodge, not right for an encyclopedia, and too much of a political agenda. Soda80 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. And it also supposes that sex crimes against Asians happens exclusively in the US. Pavel Vozenilek 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more than willing to rename the article to "Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States". I think that's a good idea.  Hong Qi Gong 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per above comments. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge into Asian fetish, which already includes some academic references on this topic. Not notable enough for its own article, but, given that this is obviously a major cultural thing, deletion might amount to WP:BIAS. --Wzhao553 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Keeping it (even as a merge) without reliable sources might also be seen as WP:BIAS. Standards should be consistently applied. Fan1967 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Finding reliable academic sources will not be problem. Three such examples are:
 * S. J. Jang, S. F. Messner, S. J. South. (Spring 1991). "Predictors of Interracial Homicide Victimization for Asian Americans: A Macrostructural Opportunity Perspective." Sociological Perspectives, 34 (2): 1-19. (Claims that Asian Americans are more likely to be victims of interracial crimes than white and African Americans, discusses sexual crimes along with homicide).
 * L Mori, J. A. Bernat, P. A. Glenn, L. L. Selle and M. G. Zarate. (April 1995). "Attitudes toward rape: Gender and ethnic differences across Asian and Caucasian college students". Sex Roles 32 (8): 457 - 467. (Cross-cultural examination of views toward sexual crimes in Asian American and Caucasian communities).
 * L. F. Lowenstein. (Summer 2002). "Fetishes and Their Associated Behavior". Sexuality and Disability 20 (2): 135 - 147. (Develops a theoretical framework for sexual fetishism, provides comments toward a theory of sexual fetishism and sexual crimes).
 * Note that this is research about the Asian American community, as is clearly the focus of the article, and not Asians in general, as its name erroneously suggests. --Wzhao553 02:05, 5 June 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.