Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Germans


 * 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 keep. Wide agreement here that TNT is not necessary. I encourage everybody to work to improve the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Germans

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is predictably a WP:SYNTH of random countries, novels and original research and not scholarly at all. The topic is certainly noteworthy, but I'd propose WP:TNT until someone else recreates a scholarly draft. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:TNT. JBchrch   talk  03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:TNT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Juxtaposition is not synthesis. And WP:TNT is not a policy or reason to delete.  Our actual policies include WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per nominator: "The topic is certainly noteworthy" ie. AfD is topic-level not content-level. AfD is not Cleanup. An article on stereotypes will list stereotypes describes from various sources. -- Green  C  17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is nowhere near bad enough that WP:TNT is advisable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Category:Ethnic and racial stereotypes shows these articles are common and justified. Clicking the reference search at the top of the AFD has many results.  https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/21/pressandpublishing.britishidentityandsociety http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3056413.stm are some good examples.   D r e a m Focus  02:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the worst offending (badly-sourced) pieces have been removed or tagged appropriately. Other than that I'm satisfied this passes GNG, just needs work. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the nominator admits the subject is notable and suggests WP:TNT - but that is not a policy. WP:N is the relevant p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶y̶ guideline. The nominator does not propose a WP:ATD and that is a policy. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it is true that WP:TNT is not a policy, there's substantial consensus around it, and it could be argued that it's a commentary on WP:DEL-REASON #14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. JBchrch   talk  18:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding of TNT is "blow it up and start over". To start over requires an article about the topic. If you AfD the topic, you can't start over (any time soon). The purpose of TNT is to blank the page and rewrite it from scratch. That is fine, if you want, but AfD says Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic at all.  --  Green  C  19:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the use of TNT for deletion when something is bad enough. It's great for nuking some articles that are so incomprehensible or POV-filled that the extent of removal required to "improve" then would essentially leave them a useless stub. I recall a while back some user who had some serious competence issues writing an article on "Transport in X country". The entire article was a mess and the only thing left after stubifying would have been "There is transportation in X country", which is not helpful to anyone at all, so it was deleted. That said, I don't think this article warrants TNT anymore. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, you decided the topic was not useful, so it was deleted with AfD. That is different from TNT, which is a "start over" ie. the topic is not deleted. AfD concerns deleting the topic. TNT is about deleting the page content and starting over. They seem similar but are different concepts. In the example, you began thinking TNT was best, but then arrived at AfD was better since the "start over" part of TNT was not worth it. -- Green  C  21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Err I think there is some confusion here over what you think I meant. I'm saying, hypothetically, if the only left from this article after cleanup was the single sentence "There are stereotypes of Germans" than it should be AfDed per TNT. That doesn't change whether the topic is notable per se. Yeah yeah I know AfD isn't cleanup, but in that instance I think it's better left a redlink so a different user with some editing experience can actually layout a new basic structure for the article. Otherwise it becomes a drive-by magnet for IP users who add random unsourced and incoherent trivia. Of course, in this instance there is the basis for a useful article here (with sourced info) so TNT is no longer required. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me also note that WP:ATD states that If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. So that's another policy ground for the practice expressed by WP:TNT. I have now added a new paragraph at WP:TNT documenting these policy grounds for deleting severely deficient articles . Feel free to challenge. JBchrch   talk  22:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: Not sure about this line you inserted - seems like an unsupported statement Although this is an essay, the practice of deleting severely deficient articles is grounded in established policy. Why use an essay to support deletion rationale if there is an actual policy or guideline. I think we would all do well to read the difference between Afd and TNT as explained by GreenC. We do not delete notable subjects because of errors or missing items. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER are applicable TNT related policy. The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is a good message: WP:5P5 no rules, but really says we should follow policies and guidelines (no mention of essays). The fact that you can insert any statement or opinion into that essay with no discussion further makes it not applicable here. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re Why use an essay to support deletion rationale if there is an actual policy or guideline, well that's the point of the change. We should probably use these policy provisions instead of WP:TNT, in order to avoid the essay/policy debate. The change drives home this idea. Re unsupported, you would have to be more specific: there is a practice, and it is supported by ATD and DEL-REASON as far as I can tell. Re We do not delete notable subjects because of errors or missing items: no one is claiming that... JBchrch   talk  00:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am staring right at your Delete ivote with your TNT rationale. So yes, delete is the opposite of TNT. TNT is as GreenC says. Blank it and start over, not delete at Afd. Find ATD so that we can keep notable topics and fix surmountable problems. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm contesting the recent addition to WP:TNT by JBchrch as a sort of circular logic and outside what TNT was meant for. See talk page there for discussion. -- Green  C  02:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Article is not in such bad shape that TNT is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2021 (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.